Holy shit! :blink: :x:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/jerry_sandusky_a_penn_state_un.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:31:40 PM
No one cares that Penn State was a rape camp. <_<
Nope. I know I don't give a flying fuck.
Could this be any more wrong? :XD:
http://creamery.psu.edu/products/food/sandusky-blitz
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 06, 2011, 08:41:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:31:40 PM
No one cares that Penn State was a rape camp. <_<
Nope. I know I don't give a flying fuck.
I think it can be assumed that I was addressing good people with that question, so I'm not sure why you felt you had to respond.
:lol:
Quote
7 counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse of someone under 16
What is that? Whoops, I slipped and my dick went in the kid's ear?
I've sorta been following the Sandusky case and PSU appears to be set for a bloodbath. Apparently the AD (possibly the President of the University, as well) lied to the grand jury when asked about any rumors about Sandusky. It appears JoPa can prove he told Tim Curley in 2002 about an eyewitness report he (from a grad assistant) had that Sandusky had sodomized an apparently 10-year-old in the PSU locker room (when this happened isn't clear). However, it appears that JoPa did nothing else. That's pretty damning right there. Maybe he was told there was a criminal investigation underway and he shouldn't mess with it by taking things further, but in any case, as the guy who hired Sandusky, he is done.
Edit: more details here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6270
Incident was in 2002.
QuoteKelly said the grand jury determined that Curley and Schultz had provided false testimony while discussing their response to the 2002 report of a child sexual assault in the football showers.
Specifically, the grand jury found that Curley committed perjury in repeatedly denying that he had ever been told that Sandusky had engaged in sexual misconduct with a child.
Additionally, assertions by Schultz that the allegations concerning Sandusky were "not that serious" and that he and Curley "had no indication that a crime had occurred" were in direct contradiction to other testimony and constituted perjury.
The grand jury found that portions of the testimony provided by both Curley and Schultz were not credible.
"The failure of top university officials to act on reports of Sandusky's alleged sexual misconduct, even after it was reported to them in graphic detail by an eyewitness, allowed a predator to walk free for years - continuing to target new victims," Kelly said. "Equally disturbing is the lack of action and apparent lack of concern among those same officials, and others who received information about this case, who either avoided asking difficult questions or chose to look the other way."
Kelly said that despite the false testimony and "uncooperative atmosphere" encompassing some Penn State University and Second Mile officials, investigators from the Attorney General's Office and State Police gradually uncovered a pattern of other potential sexual assaults by Sandusky.
My bold. That's JoPa he's talking about.
Now I wish Terrell Pryor had gone to PSU.
Lol, are they fucking brain dead. No shit it's not vanilla or strawberry. It's banana flavored ice cream covered in peanuts and caramel and named after a child rapist. You might want to consider permanently retiring it.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-11-05/Penn-State-allegations-town-reaction/51086340/1
QuoteSandusky, once so popular among the fan base that he had a Creamery flavor named after him, was the topic of discussion as customers waited in line. The flavor "Sandusky Blitz" hasn't been served in approximately two years, assistant manager James Brown said, and added that the Creamery hasn't considered permanently removing the flavor.
"The Creamery has nothing to do with the person and the allegations," Brown said in a telephone interview Saturday. "It's an ice cream flavor, there's no attachment. ... We have 110 flavors and probably make 20 or 30 on a regular basis. It's not like a vanilla or strawberry."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 09:27:38 PM
It's banana flavored ice cream covered in peanuts and caramel
Sounds delicious. :mmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 09:27:38 PM
Lol, are they fucking brain dead. No shit it's not vanilla or strawberry. It's banana flavored ice cream covered in peanuts and caramel and named after a child rapist. You might want to consider permanently retiring it.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-11-05/Penn-State-allegations-town-reaction/51086340/1
QuoteSandusky, once so popular among the fan base that he had a Creamery flavor named after him, was the topic of discussion as customers waited in line. The flavor "Sandusky Blitz" hasn't been served in approximately two years, assistant manager James Brown said, and added that the Creamery hasn't considered permanently removing the flavor.
"The Creamery has nothing to do with the person and the allegations," Brown said in a telephone interview Saturday. "It's an ice cream flavor, there's no attachment. ... We have 110 flavors and probably make 20 or 30 on a regular basis. It's not like a vanilla or strawberry."
Lol, are you fucking brain dead. They haven't made the concoction in years, and the observation that banana flavored ice cream isn't vanilla or strawberry isn't a brilliant insight on your part.
They probably haven't considered removing a lot of flavors. Why the fuck do you care? Of all the things to obsess on, this seems the most trivial one possible.
And, this is no shit, the name of Sandusky's autobiography is "Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story," http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320634085&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320634085&sr=8-1) :lol:
That's the sort of thing gays do. I'm surprised it's even a story.
For more sicko details on the Sandusky situation, here's a thing: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
It's linked in grumbler's article (the attorneygeneral.gov one) a few posts up too.
Wow, the University let Sandusky run over night camps on campus as recently as 2009.
http://deadspin.com/5856887/as-recently-as-2009-jerry-sandusky-was-running-an-overnight-football-camp-for-kids-on-penn-state-campuses
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:31:40 PM
Alabama's ranking is ridiculous.
If you look at the margin between them and Stanford, it is evident that Stanford will pass them if they win out.
Do not worry. Bama has to hope two of OSU, Stanford, and LSU lose.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2011, 11:12:02 PM
If you look at the margin between them and Stanford, it is evident that Stanford will pass them if they win out.
Do not worry. Bama has to hope two of OSU, Stanford, and LSU lose.
It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that two of those lose a game. Stanford has Oregon next week, OSU has OU (and Tech, who can apparently be world beaters one week, then suck horribly the next), and LSU has Arky. Stanford and LSU both also have championship games left too. Alabama's remaining schedule is @Miss State, Georgia Southern (1AA), and @Auburn.
If Stanford wins next week though, they'll probably jump them right then.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 06, 2011, 11:17:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2011, 11:12:02 PM
If you look at the margin between them and Stanford, it is evident that Stanford will pass them if they win out.
Do not worry. Bama has to hope two of OSU, Stanford, and LSU lose.
It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that two of those lose a game. Stanford has Oregon next week, OSU has OU (and Tech, who can apparently be world beaters one week, then suck horribly the next), and LSU has Arky. Stanford and LSU both also have championship games left too. Alabama's remaining schedule is @Miss State, Georgia Southern (1AA), and @Auburn.
If Stanford wins next week though, they'll probably jump them right then.
Heck all of them might lose. That would be fun. I hope Auburn beats Bama as well.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2011, 11:24:18 PM
Heck all of them might lose. That would be fun. I hope Auburn beats Bama as well.
:hmm: The NC game.....the NC game could possibly end up as OU - Boise in that case. I could totally dig this, but only if I get to see a hook & ladder + statue of liberty to win it and crush OU's spirit forever.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 06, 2011, 11:27:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2011, 11:24:18 PM
Heck all of them might lose. That would be fun. I hope Auburn beats Bama as well.
:hmm: The NC game.....the NC game would end up as OU - Boise in that case, wouldn't it? I could totally dig this, but only if I get to see a hook & ladder + statue of liberty to win it and crush OU's spirit forever.
Wouldn't Oregon or Arkansas pass them up?
I think Oregon would need to lose the Pac-12 championship.
Also, Georgia winning the SEC championship game would help Boise state as well.
Maybe.
Oregon has Stanford, USC, and Oregon State left (+PAC12CG if they win out). Arkansas has Tennessee and Miss State before LSU.
If Arky beat LSU, which one of LSU, Bama, and Arkansas would be in the SECCG? How do their tiebreakers work? LSU would have lost to Ark, Ark to Bama, and Bama to LSU.
E: To complete things, Boise has TCU, SDSU, Wyoming, and New Mexico coming up.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
Could this be any more wrong? :XD:
http://creamery.psu.edu/products/food/sandusky-blitz
I don't get it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 06, 2011, 09:27:11 PM
Well if I was voting I'd definitely put Stanford ahead of them. But Boise St and Houston don't deserve auto-bumping with their schedules. So I'd have Alabama at #4. Even so, I still think they're better than OK St and Stanford.
Yep. I woke up on Saturday pretty sure that LSU and Alabama were the best two teams in the country, by a pretty good margin. I didn't see anything yesterday that changed my mind.
How can a team that gives up 40+ points to K State be #2 in the country. :rolleyes:
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 12:25:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 06, 2011, 09:27:11 PM
Well if I was voting I'd definitely put Stanford ahead of them. But Boise St and Houston don't deserve auto-bumping with their schedules. So I'd have Alabama at #4. Even so, I still think they're better than OK St and Stanford.
Yep. I woke up on Saturday pretty sure that LSU and Alabama were the best two teams in the country, by a pretty good margin. I didn't see anything yesterday that changed my mind.
How can a team that gives up 40+ points to K State be #2 in the country. :rolleyes:
The same way any team is #2 in the country: they won. Same way LSU is #1 even though they let West Virginia torch them for 500+ yards. Win all your games, you should get a chance. People laughed at Bama and why they deserved to play Miami in 1992 and at Ohio State in 2002. Look how those turned out.
But frankly sbr I wouldn't worry about Oklahoma State. I do not care how many star players for Oklahoma are injured they never beat Oklahoma and doubly so when they really really need to.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 06, 2011, 11:34:08 PM
E: To complete things, Boise has TCU, SDSU, Wyoming, and New Mexico coming up.
Well all but one of those should be easy for Boise.
I am speaking, of course, of the mighty Wyoming Cowboys.
Wyoming played ok against TCU, they led in the 3rd Quarter 20-17,but down 24-20 a flying hit to the chest of the true freshman QB (who came out of nowhere) for Wyoming ended all hope. Then the snow started, TCU scored one more, and all the ice cream turned to shit.
Oh well, it was good to see a Wyoming team that could play with TCU (even in a down year for them), as the past few years had seen Wyo blown out, badly, by them.
Wyoming, though, needed this win to get that Big 12 invite...
Quote from: PDH on November 07, 2011, 09:43:48 AM
Wyoming, though, needed this win to get that Big 12 invite...
Don't worry. I hear the Big 12 has one ready to send pending the Wyoming beatdown of Boise State.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 10:52:03 PM
Wow, the University let Sandusky run over night camps on campus as recently as 2009.
http://deadspin.com/5856887/as-recently-as-2009-jerry-sandusky-was-running-an-overnight-football-camp-for-kids-on-penn-state-campuses
My uncle is really good friends with Curley, to the degree that when he goes up to PSU games (he's an alum) he stays at Curley's house. I'll be interested to hear his take on this whole fiasco.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2011, 09:59:21 AM
Quote from: PDH on November 07, 2011, 09:43:48 AM
Wyoming, though, needed this win to get that Big 12 invite...
Don't worry. I hear the Big 12 has one ready to send pending the Wyoming beatdown of Boise State.
Sweet. Big money, here we come!
In truth I predict Wyoming will actually score more than a garbage TD this time!
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
My uncle is really good friends with Curley, to the degree that when he goes up to PSU games (he's an alum) he stays at Curley's house. I'll be interested to hear his take on this whole fiasco.
Curley has plenty of spare time to tell him the story now.
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
Could this be any more wrong? :XD:
http://creamery.psu.edu/products/food/sandusky-blitz
I don't get it.
:huh:
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 10:52:03 PM
Wow, the University let Sandusky run over night camps on campus as recently as 2009.
http://deadspin.com/5856887/as-recently-as-2009-jerry-sandusky-was-running-an-overnight-football-camp-for-kids-on-penn-state-campuses
My uncle is really good friends with Curley, to the degree that when he goes up to PSU games (he's an alum) he stays at Curley's house. I'll be interested to hear his take on this whole fiasco.
I spent a weekend with curley last year (i think i posted about it including pictures last year shortly following the event -- it was joe pas 400th win).
Curley is a great guy to spend the weekend with. Hew was incredibly hospitable, as was the rest of his immediate family (wife and son). I was saddened to see this news this am. Curley is a Penn State guy. He was a lettermen at Penn State and had at one time been a graduate assitant for Joe Pa whom he idolizes. If there is any truth to the allegations, I suspect that it was rooted in misguided efforts to protect the institution he loved from a scandal. Much like his decision to step down without a fight, I believe he wants to protect his alma mater first.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2011, 01:43:38 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
Could this be any more wrong? :XD:
http://creamery.psu.edu/products/food/sandusky-blitz
I don't get it.
:huh:
I'm not sure what is so :XD:-worthy. I read all the whole label and ingredient list to see and didn't see anything that caught my eye, the name or flavors didn't either, though I am not versed in child molestation jargon so maybe I missed something.
I can't imagine it is just the fact that there happened to be an ice cream named after someone who was an important and beloved figure in that community and turned out to be something no one else expected.
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 07:13:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2011, 01:43:38 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
Could this be any more wrong? :XD:
http://creamery.psu.edu/products/food/sandusky-blitz
I don't get it.
:huh:
I'm not sure what is so :XD:-worthy. I read all the whole label and ingredient list to see and didn't see anything that caught my eye, the name or flavors didn't either, though I am not versed in child molestation jargon so maybe I missed something.
I can't imagine it is just the fact that there happened to be an ice cream named after someone who was an important and beloved figure in that community and turned out to be something no one else expected.
Think of what the guy is accused of and then look at the main flavors/ingredients in the Sandusky Blitz and the jokes just write themselves.
Banana, caramel and peanuts
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2011, 12:27:27 AM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 12:25:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 06, 2011, 09:27:11 PM
Well if I was voting I'd definitely put Stanford ahead of them. But Boise St and Houston don't deserve auto-bumping with their schedules. So I'd have Alabama at #4. Even so, I still think they're better than OK St and Stanford.
Yep. I woke up on Saturday pretty sure that LSU and Alabama were the best two teams in the country, by a pretty good margin. I didn't see anything yesterday that changed my mind.
How can a team that gives up 40+ points to K State be #2 in the country. :rolleyes:
The same way any team is #2 in the country: they won. Same way LSU is #1 even though they let West Virginia torch them for 500+ yards. Win all your games, you should get a chance. People laughed at Bama and why they deserved to play Miami in 1992 and at Ohio State in 2002. Look how those turned out.
But frankly sbr I wouldn't worry about Oklahoma State. I do not care how many star players for Oklahoma are injured they never beat Oklahoma and doubly so when they really really need to.
I was mostly just mildly trolling, though I have to say OK State is starting to annoy me; they are moving in on Oregon's territory. I don't think there is room in this country for a second team with a billionaire
owner booster who single-handedly builds amazing facilites, has a high-octane flashy offense and a hundred different ugly uniform combinations. That was the Ducks' shtick long before T Boone Pickens came along and I don't want to see it cheapened by working a second time for another school. :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2011, 07:18:43 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 07:13:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2011, 01:43:38 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
Could this be any more wrong? :XD:
http://creamery.psu.edu/products/food/sandusky-blitz
I don't get it.
:huh:
I'm not sure what is so :XD:-worthy. I read all the whole label and ingredient list to see and didn't see anything that caught my eye, the name or flavors didn't either, though I am not versed in child molestation jargon so maybe I missed something.
I can't imagine it is just the fact that there happened to be an ice cream named after someone who was an important and beloved figure in that community and turned out to be something no one else expected.
Think of what the guy is accused of and then look at the main flavors/ingredients in the Sandusky Blitz and the jokes just write themselves.
Banana, caramel and peanuts
:hmm: I'll take your word for it. Unless you want to share one of those pre-written jokes.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 07, 2011, 05:40:37 PM
I spent a weekend with curley last year (i think i posted about it including pictures last year shortly following the event -- it was joe pas 400th win).
Curley is a great guy to spend the weekend with. Hew was incredibly hospitable, as was the rest of his immediate family (wife and son). I was saddened to see this news this am. Curley is a Penn State guy. He was a lettermen at Penn State and had at one time been a graduate assitant for Joe Pa whom he idolizes. If there is any truth to the allegations, I suspect that it was rooted in misguided efforts to protect the institution he loved from a scandal. Much like his decision to step down without a fight, I believe he wants to protect his alma mater first.
Wait... did you go to PSU? What's your connection with the athletic program there?
An incredibly informative interview by an alumnus that makes it sound like tons of people knew and more suspected.
CBSpodcast (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.podtrac.com%2Fpts%2Fredirect.mp3%2Fnyc.podcast.play.it%2Fmedia%2Fd0%2Fd0%2Fd0%2FdZ%2Fd6%2Fd0%2FdA%2FZ60A_3.MP3%3Fauthtok%3D5561609144076570796_tiq4RYJmAnUJIXCrcxCHL61uU&podcast_name=Kim+Jones+-+With+Mike+Francesa&podcast_artist=Mike+Francesa&station_id=62&tag=pages&dcid=CBS.NY)
At cal:
I am and remain an fsu guy through and through.
I have no connection to penn state other than a long time admiration for the program (as with most people of my generation who grew up in the mid atlantic).
In my spare time, i am a member of the gator bowl committee to include the scout committee. Every year i make a trip to an sec or big ten school on a game day and report back what i think of the fan base mainly with an eye towards assessing whether they would follow their team to a bowl game in north florida in january. Its a lot of fun and we tend to have some significant interaction with the ad or his assistant.
Last year i visited penn state for its game against northwestern. As luck would have it, a win would be joe pa's 400th. Curley brought me to an alumni cocktail party on friday and then to his private dining room outside the nittany lion inn. He also invited me to the presidents tail gate on saturday before the game and his country club for dinner following the game. He also let watch the game from the field in the fourth quarter and stay on the field for the post game festivities with joe pa. It was the most hospitable treatment ive ever received and he made it a very memorable weekend. Spending all that time with him, i felt like i got a good sense of the man. There is no doubt that he would fall on his sword for that program if need be. He is an alumnus, a fan, a paterno admirer, and clearly was thrilled to have found himself in his dream job.
I liked Curley and was sad to see the allegations made against him; i hope they are untrue. I was equally sad to see that he resigned under these circumstances. If true, he was a decent human being who made some horrible decisions based upon misguided values.
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2011, 07:18:43 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 07:13:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2011, 01:43:38 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
Could this be any more wrong? :XD:
http://creamery.psu.edu/products/food/sandusky-blitz
I don't get it.
:huh:
I'm not sure what is so :XD:-worthy. I read all the whole label and ingredient list to see and didn't see anything that caught my eye, the name or flavors didn't either, though I am not versed in child molestation jargon so maybe I missed something.
I can't imagine it is just the fact that there happened to be an ice cream named after someone who was an important and beloved figure in that community and turned out to be something no one else expected.
Think of what the guy is accused of and then look at the main flavors/ingredients in the Sandusky Blitz and the jokes just write themselves.
Banana, caramel and peanuts
:hmm: I'll take your word for it. Unless you want to share one of those pre-written jokes.
Hmm...how are banana's usually referenced in sexual jokes?
What could caramel and peanuts represent in such a joke? :hmm:
Are you fucking kidding me? If you were 13 and still confused I'd think you were just a bit dense, or been home schooled your whole life. But you're a grown man, there's no way you don't understand.
It seems that Paterno is about to be let go. What a bad week in Pennsylvania sports history. :(
Good, he completely deserves to be fired.
Quote from: Caliga on November 08, 2011, 01:33:01 PM
It seems that Paterno is about to be let go. What a bad week in Pennsylvania sports history. :(
It is one of the worst stories I have heard in a while. A serial pedophile getting cover from an institution...just horrible right out of the worst moments of the Catholic Church.
The whole athletic department administration and the University President need to be terminated immediately.
I am a little baffled why the media waited two years while this thing was under investigation to report it. They actually waited for the indictment which is...unusual.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2011, 01:42:06 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 08, 2011, 01:33:01 PM
It seems that Paterno is about to be let go. What a bad week in Pennsylvania sports history. :(
It is one of the worst stories I have heard in a while. A serial pedophile getting cover from an institution...just horrible right out of the worst moments of the Catholic Church.
The whole athletic department administration and the University President need to be terminated immediately.
I am a little baffled why the media for waiting two years while this thing was under investigation to report it. They actually waited for the indictment which is...unusual.
When you consider it involves college sports... not so much.
Props for this guy.
http://twitpic.com/7c6cy8
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 01:47:20 PM
Props for this guy.
http://i.imgur.com/Irxra.jpg
Um you going to explain that? An old guy burning a book in front a courthouse?
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2011, 01:46:53 PM
When you consider it involves college sports... not so much.
And it all just happens to come to light the week after Joe Paterno breaks the all time wins record for Division I.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2011, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 01:47:20 PM
Props for this guy.
http://twitpic.com/7c6cy8
Um you going to explain that? An old guy burning a book in front a courthouse?
Meant to post the above link, which explains it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 10:54:06 AM
Hmm...how are banana's usually referenced in sexual jokes?
What could caramel and peanuts represent in such a joke? :hmm:
Are you fucking kidding me? If you were 13 and still confused I'd think you were just a bit dense, or been home schooled your whole life. But you're a grown man, there's no way you don't understand.
Is that a banana in your sundae or are you just glad to see me? :hmm:
I don't think I've ever heard a sexual joke involving caramel and peanuts.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2011, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 10:54:06 AM
Hmm...how are banana's usually referenced in sexual jokes?
What could caramel and peanuts represent in such a joke? :hmm:
Are you fucking kidding me? If you were 13 and still confused I'd think you were just a bit dense, or been home schooled your whole life. But you're a grown man, there's no way you don't understand.
Is that a banana in your sundae or are you just glad to see me? :hmm:
I don't think I've ever heard a sexual joke involving caramel and peanuts.
[butthead] He said "nuts". [/butthead]
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2011, 09:49:28 PM
And, this is no shit, the name of Sandusky's autobiography is "Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story," http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320634085&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320634085&sr=8-1) :lol:
Since when does an assistant coach write an autobiography?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2011, 02:15:01 PM
Since when does an assistant coach write an autobiography?
He was a nationally renowned defensive guru and founded a huge charity that "helped" over 100,000 children a year.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2011, 02:15:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2011, 09:49:28 PM
And, this is no shit, the name of Sandusky's autobiography is "Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story," http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320634085&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320634085&sr=8-1) :lol:
Since when does an assistant coach write an autobiography?
Since 2001 apparently.
Wow, this just completely sucks.
I am not a Penn State fan, but this just really, really sucks. Penn State, no matter what jokes are made about Jo Pa, has always been the great example of what college football was all about, the intensity, the competition, but still doing things right.
This is like finding out that Mother Theresa dealt drugs on the side or something.
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2011, 02:20:08 PM
Wow, this just completely sucks.
I am not a Penn State fan, but this just really, really sucks. Penn State, no matter what jokes are made about Jo Pa, has always been the great example of what college football was all about, the intensity, the competition, but still doing things right.
This is like finding out that Mother Theresa dealt drugs on the side or something.
Yep. This Joe Paterno I am learning about today is not the one I had heard about my entire life.
A bunch of my friends and relatives are Penn State alumni and the main thing I keep hearing is how ashamed they are to be alums right now. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 10:54:06 AM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2011, 07:18:43 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 07:13:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2011, 01:43:38 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 07, 2011, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
Could this be any more wrong? :XD:
http://creamery.psu.edu/products/food/sandusky-blitz
I don't get it.
:huh:
I'm not sure what is so :XD:-worthy. I read all the whole label and ingredient list to see and didn't see anything that caught my eye, the name or flavors didn't either, though I am not versed in child molestation jargon so maybe I missed something.
I can't imagine it is just the fact that there happened to be an ice cream named after someone who was an important and beloved figure in that community and turned out to be something no one else expected.
Think of what the guy is accused of and then look at the main flavors/ingredients in the Sandusky Blitz and the jokes just write themselves.
Banana, caramel and peanuts
:hmm: I'll take your word for it. Unless you want to share one of those pre-written jokes.
Hmm...how are banana's usually referenced in sexual jokes?
What could caramel and peanuts represent in such a joke? :hmm:
Are you fucking kidding me? If you were 13 and still confused I'd think you were just a bit dense, or been home schooled your whole life. But you're a grown man, there's no way you don't understand.
I had a feeling that is where you were going with it but I don't find it funny, I kept hoping there was something more to it. I would understand a 13 year old finding a banana funny in a sexual context but you're a grown man, aren't you?
:XD: Doesn't mean you find it ha ha funny. You find it ironic in a black humor type way.
At least 20 victims :bleeding:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/08/number-victims-in-penn-state-sex-abuse-case-doubles/
Could we start a new thread for this? Really rather not have to think about it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2011, 06:47:37 PM
Could we start a new thread for this? Really rather not have to think about it.
PM'd Neil on it.
If all they have on JoPa is he knew about Captain Pedo "showering with a 10 year old boy" the early reports of his death may have been exaggerated. Football locker rooms have group showers. People shower together.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
If all they have on JoPa is he knew about Captain Pedo "showering with a 10 year old boy" the early reports of his death may have been exaggerated. Football locker rooms have group showers. People shower together.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1
QuoteMr. Paterno's day-to-day status with the program could be affected by the attorney general's investigation. In explaining his actions, Mr. Paterno has publicly said he was not told of the graphic nature of an alleged 2002 assault by the assistant coach Jerry Sandusky of a young boy in the football building's showers. He said the graduate assistant coach who reported the assault, Mike McQueary, said only that something disturbing had happened that was perhaps sexual in nature.
But on Tuesday a person with knowledge of Mr. McQueary's version of events called Mr. Paterno's claim into question. The person said that Mr. McQueary had told those in authority the explicit details of what he saw, including in his face-to-face meeting with Mr. Paterno the day after the incident.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
If all they have on JoPa is he knew about Captain Pedo "showering with a 10 year old boy" the early reports of his death may have been exaggerated. Football locker rooms have group showers. People shower together.
If you read the indictment, which I did and quite frankly do NOT recommend that others read :x , the coach who witnessed Sandusky abusing the kid supposedly was extremely distraught and told Paterno what it was that he witnessed. Nobody gets extremely distraught over a group shower, especially not an ex-football player.
Kay.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
If all they have on JoPa is he knew about Captain Pedo "showering with a 10 year old boy" the early reports of his death may have been exaggerated. Football locker rooms have group showers. People shower together.
McQuerey the WR coach who witnessed the rape testified to the grand jury that he explained in explicit detail what happened to JoePa.
Paterno reported to the AD that some fondling or something of a sexual nature happened.
The AD reported to the President that there was horsing around in a shower.
Supposedly that's what went down. But I, and many believe it's impossible that JoePa could not have known Sandusky was investigated in '98.
A coach knows a third string long snapper is cited for underage drinking before his parents, there's no way he couldn't know about that investigation. He didn't start going senile to 2008, he was still sharp and on top of that stuff back then.
Because nobody was willing to start a new thread.
JoPa will be gone, lemmonjello will be the new HC. Tim will still manage to be a complete cockmunch and still try to sound pompous.
Post away.
JoePa will turn into a lich and strike down his enemies.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:08 PM
JoePa will turn into a lich and strike down his enemies.
"Will" turn into? :hmm:
Seems like the 2nd Mile knew everything but didn't do shit
http://deadspin.com/5857693/youth-organization-learned-of-jerry-sandusky-investigation-in-1998-let-jerry-sandusky-fraternize-with-youth-until-2008
Hc???
Was ist das hc?
Thanks Neil.
Quote from: Caliga on November 08, 2011, 08:22:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:08 PM
JoePa will turn into a lich and strike down his enemies.
"Will" turn into? :hmm:
He still quests for Vecna's green playbook.
There on the verge of a pro Joe riot down there, I hope the police crush them without mercy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 11:31:55 PM
There on the verge of a pro Joe riot down there, I hope the police crush them without mercy.
Why's that?
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 11:31:55 PM
There on the verge of a pro Joe riot down there, I hope the police crush them without mercy.
Why's that?
Students that believe Joe Paterno & his legacy is more important than covering up Child Rape deserve to be beaten by state police.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2011, 06:47:37 PM
Could we start a new thread for this? Really rather not have to think about it.
Sorry but...
:rolleyes:
Welcome to my world Eddie. Nothing but violence, thefts and degeneracy Monday to Friday.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 11:37:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 11:31:55 PM
There on the verge of a pro Joe riot down there, I hope the police crush them without mercy.
Why's that?
Students that believe Joe Paterno & his legacy is more important than covering up Child Rape deserve to be beaten by state police.
Surely the legacy of a great man is more important than some random children?
I mean, they can lynch the homo if they want, but the old man was wise to kick the problem upstairs and then forget about it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2011, 11:45:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2011, 06:47:37 PM
Could we start a new thread for this? Really rather not have to think about it.
Sorry but...
:rolleyes:
Welcome to my world Eddie. Nothing but violence, thefts and degeneracy Monday to Friday.
What, do you refrain from committing criminal acts on the weekend?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2011, 11:45:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2011, 06:47:37 PM
Could we start a new thread for this? Really rather not have to think about it.
Sorry but...
:rolleyes:
Welcome to my world Eddie. Nothing but violence, thefts and degeneracy Monday to Friday.
What, do you refrain from committing criminal acts on the weekend?
Nice :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2011, 11:45:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2011, 06:47:37 PM
Could we start a new thread for this? Really rather not have to think about it.
Sorry but...
:rolleyes:
Welcome to my world Eddie. Nothing but violence, thefts and degeneracy Monday to Friday.
What, do you refrain from committing criminal acts on the weekend?
Her Majesty does not pay for overtime. -_-
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 11:31:55 PM
There on the verge of a pro Joe riot down there, I hope the police crush them without mercy.
Occupy Beaver Stadium.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:13:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2011, 11:45:21 PM
Sorry but...
:rolleyes:
Welcome to my world Eddie. Nothing but violence, thefts and degeneracy Monday to Friday.
What, do you refrain from committing criminal acts on the weekend?
Her Majesty does not pay for overtime. -_-
Well-played! :bowler:
Read the indictment.
This isn't a free car for a prospect, or getting a blue chipper's Mom a job, or letting a booster buy Johnny Touchdown a new suit.
This is so, so much worse. This is really bad. This is Boston Diocese bad.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 09, 2011, 07:22:36 AM
Read the indictment.
This isn't a free car for a prospect, or getting a blue chipper's Mom a job, or letting a booster buy Johnny Touchdown a new suit.
This is so, so much worse. This is really bad. This is Boston Diocese bad.
:hug: Welcome back. Also, agree.
CDM! :hug:
So, Tom Ridge might replace Spanier as President of Penn State.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1X1Ez.jpg&hash=97edcb24dbf6096c4e4ef87ff32761d8c3bc5786)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
If all they have on JoPa is he knew about Captain Pedo "showering with a 10 year old boy" the early reports of his death may have been exaggerated. Football locker rooms have group showers. People shower together.
I don't think Penn State was in the habit of giving football scholarships to 10-year olds.
I can't think of a reasonable scenario under which an assistant coach and a child not otherwise affiliated with the university would be taking a shower together alone in a football team locker room.
They were dirty?
Quote from: sbr on November 08, 2011, 03:53:18 PM
I had a feeling that is where you were going with it but I don't find it funny, I kept hoping there was something more to it. I would understand a 13 year old finding a banana funny in a sexual context but you're a grown man, aren't you?
I could see it better if it was some sort of banana split with nuts on top but banana flavored ice cream? Weak unless when is as emotionally mature as Tim.
Joe Pa to retire at the end of the season? Does he think this is a joke?
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 12:05:05 PM
Joe Pa to retire at the end of the season? Does he think this is a joke?
Well it is ultimately the board's decision. I think that was just his preference.
I might have to go to the Penn State at Ohio State game. Just to see JoePa ride off into the sunset.
Quote from: Caliga on November 08, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
If all they have on JoPa is he knew about Captain Pedo "showering with a 10 year old boy" the early reports of his death may have been exaggerated. Football locker rooms have group showers. People shower together.
If you read the indictment, which I did and quite frankly do NOT recommend that others read :x , the coach who witnessed Sandusky abusing the kid supposedly was extremely distraught and told Paterno what it was that he witnessed. Nobody gets extremely distraught over a group shower, especially not an ex-football player.
Yeah, this seems pretty bad, and I haven't read the indictment. I got a bit grossed out over all those people supporting Paterno.
Quote from: KRonn on November 09, 2011, 12:34:12 PM
Yeah, this seems pretty bad, and I haven't read the indictment. I got a bit grossed out over all those people supporting Paterno.
It'll go from "it seems pretty bad" to "holy fucking shit" when you read it. It's bad. Real bad.
e: And the people supporting him are absolute retards. I mean, really? The guy didn't report child rape and allowed the freak pedo to keep bringing kids around his football program, using that program to get close to them, despite his history.
Did you guys catch the footage of Matt Millen blubbering?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 12:38:07 PM
Did you guys catch the footage of Matt Millen blubbering?
No I missed it. I understand he was talking about killing Sandusky or kicking his ass or something?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 12:39:38 PM
No I missed it. I understand he was talking about killing Sandusky or kicking his ass or something?
Not in what I saw. It was just "these are little kids...sob sob sob"
Detroit wept for years with Millen in charge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 12:40:47 PM
Not in what I saw. It was just "these are little kids...sob sob sob"
Oh okay. Must have been someone else talking about kicking ass. I'll look for some youtube links or something with Millen.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 12:44:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 12:40:47 PM
Not in what I saw. It was just "these are little kids...sob sob sob"
Oh okay. Must have been someone else talking about kicking ass. I'll look for some youtube links or something with Millen.
I think that was Herm, also Golic IIRC.
Been reading the grand jury report. Man - he's a classic rpedator, with a well-honed technique for grooming his victims.
This scandal proves the wisdom of an old southern political expression, "never get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy".
I've read the indictment.
Having read it carefully, I'm troubled that at first blush the university does not apppear to have investigated the allegations once it learned of them.
While joe pa could have done more, I'm not sure that his behavior was unreasonable given the facts known to us presently:
1. he is told by a graduate assistant that he witnessed sandusky (assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events) in the shower with a boy who appeared about ten;
2. at this time joe pa has known sandusky for 34 + years and we have no fact that suggests joe pa should have believed a claim this wild about sandusky who otherwise was a pillar in the community and president and founder of a charity whose mission was to help young kids;
3. sandusky no longer works for joe pa;
4. he is not on the campus because of joe pa but instead because of his charity (apparently at the will of a department other than athletics);
5. if we accept that thus far there is no known fact which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation;
6. joe pa nontheless reports it to his boss and to the head of the department at penn state who is letting sandusky run this charity on penn state property.
Without more information, I cannot say that joe pa's conduct was unreasonable; I fail to understand (and remain troubled by) joe pa's not confronting his friend to ask whether its true. It would seem that that would have been the most likely second stop unless he had reason to know the answer already. If so, then joe pa chose to ignore the problem.
Turning to curley, spanner, and company, there can be no excuse for their not having investigated the allegations and run it to ground. This failure is, however, inconsistent with how institutions behave in my experience.
I fear therefore that its more likely that they did investigate the allegations and then buried the results of that investigation hoping that they could keep sandusky away from penn state property and avoid further scandal. If they buried what likely should have been public records, they likely commited crimes as public officials crimes both in burying public records and failing to bring matters to the attention of the authorites, which forced them into a position where they they werre all stuck having to stick to a story that frays at its fringes.
This also seems consitent with their decision to keep him off Penn State property with his charities' beneficiaries as it suggests that the investigation corroborrated some of what the ga reported; why else take this act if the adminstration believes the allegations untrue?
How does the adminstration conclude that there is some truth to the allegations without some investigation or knowledge that there was some problem pre existing this complaint vis a vis sandusky and his charges?
Given the discrepancy between the testimony of the GA and JoePa, and the great likelihood that JoePa knew a lot more about Sandusky then he let on, I think he's going to end up getting charged.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/09/joe.paterno/?hpt=hp_c1
Quote
Did Joe Paterno break the law?
By Michael McCann
Joe Paterno could still be charged with perjury if authorities find he wasn't truthful in his grand jury testimony.
News and analysis from SI.com
While Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says that her office won't file charges against Joe Paterno for not reporting the alleged child sexual abuse by former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the 84-year-old coach could eventually face criminal charges for perjury, obstruction of justice and violating the state's Child Protective Services Law. Paterno could also become a defendant in civil lawsuits filed by Sandusky's alleged victims. Those lawsuits could allege that Paterno negligently failed to prevent a third party with whom he had a supervisory relationship (Sandusky) from committing abuse.
Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
Under Pennsylvania law, as in other jurisdictions, perjury refers to knowingly lying while under oath. Obstruction of justice describes interference with the administration of justice, such as by concealing evidence or delaying or frustrating a criminal investigation. While Paterno has thus far escaped these criminal charges, his statements and behavior suggest that he remains vulnerable to them. That is particularly evident when considering troubling inconsistencies between Paterno's testimony to the grand jury that investigated Sandusky and the testimony of Penn State assistant Mike McQueary.
These inconsistencies related to Paterno's and McQueary's statements about "Victim 2" in the grand jury's statement of facts. According to the grand jury's findings of fact, McQueary detailed how in 2002 he saw a naked Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in the showers in the Penn State football locker room. McQueary also testified that he told Paterno what he saw the following day, though it isn't clear from McQueary's testimony how explicit he was in his description to Paterno.
After hearing from McQueary, Paterno alerted athletic director Tim Curley. Yet instead of relaying what McQueary claims to have told him, Paterno conveyed a milder and vaguer description. Specifically, Paterno testified under oath that McQueary had said that Sandusky was engaged in fondling or "doing something of a sexual nature" to a boy.
To be sure, the phrase "doing something of a sexual nature" technically includes forcibly subjecting a child to anal intercourse, meaning Paterno may have been more evasive than untruthful. Then again, Paterno's hazy choice of words could encompass a band of sexual acts, from raping a 10-year-old boy to inappropriately touching or patting a child, that ranges too widely in heinousness to be deemed consistent with McQueary's allegedly more specific statements. The phrase unnecessarily imports ambiguity and generality where none had existed, and dubiously invites the listener -- Curley -- to assign a lack of severity to the incident. From that lens, Paterno appears to have told Curley a different account than what McQueary had told him.
The inconsistent testimonies raise several questions:
• Did McQueary lie to the grand jury about what he saw or told Paterno?
• Did Paterno lie to the grand jury about what McQueary had told him?
• If neither witness lied, did Paterno intentionally misrepresent what McQueary had told him in order to discourage Curley from aggressively investigating the matter or alerting the police? If so, did Paterno conceal the severity of the evidence or delay the onset of a criminal investigation to such an extent that he obstructed justice?
It should be reiterated that Paterno is at least publicly regarded by law enforcement authorities as a witness, rather than as a possible defendant; if authorities thought his actions clearly violated the law, he would have already been charged, just like Curley and former Penn State senior vice president of business and finance Gary Schultz. For purposes of obstruction of justice, Paterno also benefits from Pennsylvania's statute of limitations, which prevents authorities from charging individuals with crimes after a period of years. Although the length of years can be extended or "tolled" under certain circumstances, authorities would likely encounter difficulty charging Paterno nearly 10 years after the 2002 incident. Statute of limitations would not help Paterno deflect perjury charges, however, as his grand jury testimony occurred within the last year, thereby clearly falling within the applicable five-year statute of limitations.
Nonetheless, the potential exists for Paterno to face both perjury and obstruction of justice charges, especially as the investigation intensifies and as other witnesses, as well as defendants and potential defendants, talk. Also, should Curley and Schultz and, if eventually charged, university president Graham Spanier seek plea deals, they may be willing to implicate Paterno in exchange for more favorable treatment. Paterno, conversely, could seek the same type of arrangement with prosecutors, implicating Curley, Schultz et al. in exchange for avoiding prosecution. It is thus very possible that Penn State officials who worked closely together may wind up in a "prisoner's dilemma" where they will have an incentive to cut a deal and implicate their former colleagues before those former colleagues cut a deal and implicate them.
Child Protective Services Law
Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, certain individuals, including teachers and school administrators, have a legal obligation to immediately report suspected child abuse to child protective services or law enforcement, or to a "person in charge" (supervisor), who must then report the alleged abuse to the authorities. The reporting must be honest. When in writing, the reporting must also include known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse, along with other material details.
Within one day of learning from McQueary of the alleged abuse, Paterno notified Curley, his boss. By doing so, Paterno satisfied an obligation to immediately report to a person in charge.
On the other hand, one could read the Child Protective Services Law to classify Paterno as himself a person in charge of McQueary and as one who had a subsequent obligation to report to the authorities. Still, Curley's status as Paterno's boss likely insulates Paterno from liability, at least for failing to notify child protective services or law enforcement.
Paterno may have nonetheless violated the Child Protective Services Law by failing to tell Curley the specific story as told by McQueary and by failing to provide known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse. As discussed above, if McQueary's testimony is true, Paterno appeared to downplay the severity of the incident while speaking with Curley. His portrayal seemed incomplete, if not outright disingenuous. Also, while Paterno made his initial report of the suspected child abuse to Curley by phone, any written communications would have required the known information.
In Paterno's defense, law enforcement authorities have indicated that, in their current view, while Paterno appeared to do the bare minimum, he technically satisfied his legal obligations under the Child Protective Services Law. Whether that viewpoint proves sustainable could depend on the development of new and more incriminating facts and public pressure.
Negligence
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
Sandusky's alleged victims could file lawsuits against Penn State for negligently failing to protect them from Sandusky. Under tort law, employers have a duty to prevent their employees from committing crimes or civil harms on others while their employees are engaged in their employment. Even after Sandusky retired, Penn State, by allowing him on campus despite questions about his treatment of children, could have breached a duty of care to children whom Sandusky allegedly abused. Penn State, for its part, could maintain that it took preventative steps, including prohibiting Sandusky from bringing children to campus and taking away his keys to university facilities. It could also portray Sandusky as no longer an employee but rather a retired individual who was permitted to use a very limited range of campus resources.
The alleged victims could also sue Paterno on similar grounds. While Paterno was not technically Sandusky's "boss" after 1999, it seems plausible to assume that Sandusky -- still actively involved with the team, albeit in an informal capacity -- continued to view himself as Paterno's subordinate. Victims of Sandusky could allege that Paterno negligently failed to protect them or to adequately warn authorities of Sandusky's alleged abuse of children.
Should tort lawsuits be filed, expect Penn State, Paterno and other targeted Penn State officials (e.g., Curley, Schultz and Spanier) to attempt to settle the claims before they go to trial. At a minimum, such trials would paint the university and its top officials as immoral and irresponsible, and as embracing a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach to what appears to be the actions of a sadistic man.
Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 12:52:37 PM
if we accept that thus far there is no fact known which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might j have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation.
But this is not the first time Sandusky had been under investigation for this stuff. He was investigated for an incident in 1998 which totally coincidentally corresponded to when he was forced out as DC. Surely a second accusation should have forced Joe Pa, the moral compass and the leader at Penn State, to take serious action. You are really asking me to give this dude an enormous benefit of the doubt to the point I am supposed to assume Joe Paterno is either an idiot or so deep in denial he is out of touch with reality. I mean he let the dude on campus for years, with young boys against the University's own policy, for years after this even while the freaking Grand Jury investigation was going on. How could you interprete that differently than Joe not just being skeptical about the accusation, but outright supporting his long time friend and assistant coach Sandusky?
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 12:52:01 PM
Been reading the grand jury report. Man - he's a classic rpedator, with a well-honed technique for grooming his victims.
Yep. He likely had been doing this since he was a young man. I have seen so many cases exactly like it. It is incredible how well these guys get people to cover up for them I mean it is ridiculous. Even the lowest criminals consider raping a child a disgusting act yet over and over again respectable institutions provide cover for these guys even when they suspect what is going on. The webs they spin to groom these kids and con people into providing cover for themselves is remarkable.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 09, 2011, 12:15:08 PM
I might have to go to the Penn State at Ohio State game. Just to see JoePa ride off into the sunset.
Seriously dude. Too soon.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 12:52:37 PM
he is told by a graduate assistant that he witnessed sandusky (assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events) in the shower with a boy who appeared about ten
According to said graduate student, who the grand jury found to be very credible, he told Joe Pa that Sandusky was engadged in the act of sodomy with a bout who appeared to be ten.
I don't care how old a friend he is - if someone tells me that my friend is raping young boys I do a hell of a lot more than Joe Pa did.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 01:04:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 12:52:01 PM
Been reading the grand jury report. Man - he's a classic rpedator, with a well-honed technique for grooming his victims.
Yep. He likely had been doing this since he was a young man. I have seen so many cases exactly like it. It is incredible how well these guys get people to cover up for them I mean it is ridiculous. Even the lowest criminals consider raping a child a disgusting act yet over and over again respectable institutions provide cover for these guys even when they suspect what is going on. The webs they spin to groom these kids and con people into providing cover for themselves is remarkable.
Just curious - what kind of work or studies do you do that you've seen many cases like this?
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:09:00 PM
Just curious - what kind of work or studies do you do that you've seen many cases like this?
Out of college I worked with boys who had been sexually abused or who were sexual predators themselves...naturally the populations overlap to the point of being almost identical. My father is also a psychologist who has worked with those kinds of kids alot for the past 40 years. He has been an expert witness in hundreds of cases. The Catholic Seminary in central Texas also has him screen every single applicant.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 12:52:37 PM
if we accept that thus far there is no fact known which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might j have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation.
But this is not the first time Sandusky had been under investigation for this stuff. He was investigated for an incident in 1998 which totally coincidentally corresponded to when he was forced out as DC. Surely a second accusation should have forced Joe Pa, the moral compass and the leader at Penn State, to take serious action. You are really asking me to give this dude an enormous benefit of the doubt to the point I am supposed to assume Joe Paterno is either an idiot or so deep in denial he is out of touch with reality. I mean he let the dude on campus for years, with young boys against the University's own policy, for years after this even while the freaking Grand Jury investigation was going on. How could you interprete that differently than Joe not just being skeptical about the accusation, but outright supporting his long time friend and assistant coach Sandusky?
First re-read the entirety of what I've written; I've not given Joe Pa the free pass you suggest.
Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
Rather than lynch everybody based upon assumptions, I'm merely analyzing the known facts at present.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 01:04:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 12:52:01 PM
Been reading the grand jury report. Man - he's a classic rpedator, with a well-honed technique for grooming his victims.
Yep. He likely had been doing this since he was a young man. I have seen so many cases exactly like it. It is incredible how well these guys get people to cover up for them I mean it is ridiculous. Even the lowest criminals consider raping a child a disgusting act yet over and over again respectable institutions provide cover for these guys even when they suspect what is going on. The webs they spin to groom these kids and con people into providing cover for themselves is remarkable.
He was born that way.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 01:18:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 01:04:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 12:52:01 PM
Been reading the grand jury report. Man - he's a classic rpedator, with a well-honed technique for grooming his victims.
Yep. He likely had been doing this since he was a young man. I have seen so many cases exactly like it. It is incredible how well these guys get people to cover up for them I mean it is ridiculous. Even the lowest criminals consider raping a child a disgusting act yet over and over again respectable institutions provide cover for these guys even when they suspect what is going on. The webs they spin to groom these kids and con people into providing cover for themselves is remarkable.
He was born that way.
okay, gaga.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:05:57 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 12:52:37 PM
he is told by a graduate assistant that he witnessed sandusky (assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events) in the shower with a boy who appeared about ten
According to said graduate student, who the grand jury found to be very credible, he told Joe Pa that Sandusky was engadged in the act of sodomy with a bout who appeared to be ten.
I don't care how old a friend he is - if someone tells me that my friend is raping young boys I do a hell of a lot more than Joe Pa did.
i said assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events; joe pa's version differs from the ga's.
If we accept the ga's version of events then joe pa needs to be on trial for perjury with the two adminstrators whose perjury charges flow from testifying differently than the ga.
What about the guy who saw the 10 year old getting raped in the shower. Why the hell didnt he step in and stop it?
I agree there is a lot of blame to go around here but I cannot understand that part at all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
What about the guy who saw the 10 year old getting raped in the shower. Why the hell didnt he step in and stop it?
I agree there is a lot of blame to go around here but I can understand that part at all.
Cause there were two naked guys in there? What, do you think he was gay?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 01:28:37 PM
Cause there were two naked guys in there? What, do you think he was gay?
?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
What about the guy who saw the 10 year old getting raped in the shower. Why the hell didnt he step in and stop it?
I agree there is a lot of blame to go around here but I cannot understand that part at all.
In the heat of the moment it is often hard to know exactly what to do.
But afterwards, he seems to have done the right thing. He went and talked to a number of people. And given how sainted he is, he probably figured all he needed to do was talk to Paterno.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
Rather than lynch everybody based upon assumptions, I'm merely analyzing the known facts at present.
There is indeed nothing concrete that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. That is speculation, reasonable speculation IMO, but speculation non-the-less. But it has always been a bit of a mystery why Sandusky was booted to the curb so suddenly when his defense seemed at the height of its powers. However I am not calling for Paterno to be lynched, merely removed from his job as Penn State head football coach, which should have already been done based on his own testimony.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
What about the guy who saw the 10 year old getting raped in the shower. Why the hell didnt he step in and stop it?
I agree there is a lot of blame to go around here but I cannot understand that part at all.
In the heat of the moment it is often hard to know exactly what to do.
But afterwards, he seems to have done the right thing. He went and talked to a number of people. And given how sainted he is, he probably figured all he needed to do was talk to Paterno.
You have to wonder though how this dude was able to just sit there and watch Sandusky walk around a free man on campus for years afterwards though.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:33:03 PM
In the heat of the moment it is often hard to know exactly what to do.
Heat of the moment? I agree that seeing a man anally raping a 10 year old boy in a shower would definitely be disturbing. But I dont agree that it would be hard to know exactly what to do. That is if one was considering the welfare of the boy. It would be pretty easy to say "What the fuck are you doing!" and end the rape right there. There is no excuse for this.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 01:35:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
What about the guy who saw the 10 year old getting raped in the shower. Why the hell didnt he step in and stop it?
I agree there is a lot of blame to go around here but I cannot understand that part at all.
In the heat of the moment it is often hard to know exactly what to do.
But afterwards, he seems to have done the right thing. He went and talked to a number of people. And given how sainted he is, he probably figured all he needed to do was talk to Paterno.
You have to wonder though how this dude was able to just sit there and watch Sandusky walk around a free man on campus for years afterwards though.
I think that lends support to Rasputin's analysis of what occured.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 01:35:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
What about the guy who saw the 10 year old getting raped in the shower. Why the hell didnt he step in and stop it?
I agree there is a lot of blame to go around here but I cannot understand that part at all.
In the heat of the moment it is often hard to know exactly what to do.
But afterwards, he seems to have done the right thing. He went and talked to a number of people. And given how sainted he is, he probably figured all he needed to do was talk to Paterno.
You have to wonder though how this dude was able to just sit there and watch Sandusky walk around a free man on campus for years afterwards though.
Just a resonable hypothesis, but I suspect the GA was removed from the university at some point. It's typically how big institutions try to hush up these kinds of allegations.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
What about the guy who saw the 10 year old getting raped in the shower. Why the hell didnt he step in and stop it?
I agree there is a lot of blame to go around here but I cannot understand that part at all.
Because GAs are spineless, worthless human beings who cannot intervene or make a decision.
Has it been established that he was fucking the kid in the ass?
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:38:23 PM
Just a resonable hypothesis, but I suspect the GA was removed from the university at some point. It's typically how big institutions try to hush up these kinds of allegations.
Not quite. Now he is their Wide Receivers coach and Recruiting Coordinator. One of the highest ranked assistant coaches.
Or maybe he was, it seems he has removed himself from the team right now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 01:38:39 PM
Has it been established that he was fucking the kid in the ass?
That's what McQueary said he saw. And heard. :x
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 01:38:39 PM
Has it been established that he was fucking the kid in the ass?
That was what McQueary said in the indictment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 01:38:39 PM
Has it been established that he was fucking the kid in the ass?
It has been established that the GA told the Grand Jury that is what he witnessed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:37:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:33:03 PM
In the heat of the moment it is often hard to know exactly what to do.
Heat of the moment? I agree that seeing a man anally raping a 10 year old boy in a shower would definitely be disturbing. But I dont agree that it would be hard to know exactly what to do. That is if one was considering the welfare of the boy. It would be pretty easy to say "What the fuck are you doing!" and end the rape right there. There is no excuse for this.
Nah. It really is one of those things you don't know how you'd act unless you were there. I'd like to think I'd do exactly what you suggest, but who knows...
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:37:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:33:03 PM
In the heat of the moment it is often hard to know exactly what to do.
Heat of the moment? I agree that seeing a man anally raping a 10 year old boy in a shower would definitely be disturbing. But I dont agree that it would be hard to know exactly what to do. That is if one was considering the welfare of the boy. It would be pretty easy to say "What the fuck are you doing!" and end the rape right there. There is no excuse for this.
Nah. It really is one of those things you don't know how you'd act unless you were there. I'd like to think I'd do exactly what you suggest, but who knows...
Maybe if he thought his personal safety was in jeopardy there was some excuse for running away and not saying anything until the next day. But this has the stench of someone trying to figure out whether doing anything would harm his own career at Penn State. Its disgusting.
edit: Dont forget this wasnt some diminutive student who witessed these events. The guy had been a football player himself. He could easily have stepped in and stopped it. His decision not to allowed the rape to continue. That guy is dirt imho.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 01:38:39 PM
Has it been established that he was fucking the kid in the ass?
as a matter of fact no; it has, however, been established that a former graduate assistant testified to a grand jury that he witneesed such an event and reported that event to a couple of school admintrators and Joe Pa
It has further been established that when Joe Pa and these school admininstrators testified to that same grand jury nine years after the conversations first occured, they recounted a very disturbing but different version of that same conversation with the ga
Why didn't the witness call the cops?
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:45:36 PM
finally on the what happened to the ga question, ga's in atheletic departments typically only have one or two year terms and then they graduate in their program and move on naturally
The GA is Mike McQueary, recruiting coordinator and WR coach. He's been at Penn State since 2000.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:45:36 PM
finally on the what happened to the ga question, ga's in atheletic departments typically only have one or two year terms and then they graduate in their program and move on naturally
Apparently that is not what happened to this guy though. One wonders...
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2011, 01:48:23 PM
Why didn't the witness call the cops?
Why didnt any of them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:45:36 PM
finally on the what happened to the ga question, ga's in atheletic departments typically only have one or two year terms and then they graduate in their program and move on naturally
Apparently that is not what happened to this guy though. One wonders...
agree; that's a new fact to me and it that seems to suggest that he might have been complicitous at one time, and has more recently decided to blow the whistle; very curious indeed
this is especially troubling considering that the whole perjury case is built on his testimony being more credible to the grand jury than schultz or curley's ...curley would have therefore been his ultimate boss at the time of their respective testimony
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it? Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible. And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 01:39:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:38:23 PM
Just a resonable hypothesis, but I suspect the GA was removed from the university at some point. It's typically how big institutions try to hush up these kinds of allegations.
Not quite. Now he is their Wide Receivers coach and Recruiting Coordinator. One of the highest ranked assistant coaches.
Or maybe he was, it seems he has removed himself from the team right now.
Ah yes - another common tactic - bribe the witness.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it? Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible. And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.
More than that, can you truly believe that Paterno's principal assistant could be raping boys for years without him coming to know somethign was up?
However, at least legally speaking, we can not assume anything.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it? Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible. And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.
to the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that other(s) with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover or that he didn't need to know depending upon the outcome
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it? Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible. And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.
I dont see why Paterno would be involved in an investigation of that incident. He did not witness it he merely passed on what he was told. We also dont know what Paterno was told of the results of the investigation - if any.
What we do know is the main witness ended up with a much sought after coaching position and nothing happened to the alleged perp.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:59:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it? Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible. And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.
....What we do know is the main witness ended up with a much sought after coaching position and nothing happened to the alleged perp.
i agree; thety whole thing is both far more complicated and far smellier than first appears
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:45:36 PM
finally on the what happened to the ga question, ga's in atheletic departments typically only have one or two year terms and then they graduate in their program and move on naturally
Apparently that is not what happened to this guy though. One wonders...
agree; that's a new fact to me and it that seems to suggest that he might have been complicitous at one time, and has more recently decided to blow the whistle; very curious indeed
this is especially troubling considering that the whole perjury case is built on his testimony being more credible to the grand jury than schultz or curley's ...curley would have therefore been his ultimate boss at the time of their respective testimony
I'm peicing things together - sounds like another boy was invetigated at first (who was described as Victim 1), and then the investigation widened to Victim 2 and the grand jury cam a-knockin. It doesn't sound like anyone at Penn State blew the whistle at all.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 02:03:53 PM
I'm peicing things together - sounds like another boy was invetigated at first (who was described as Victim 1), and then the investigation widened to Victim 2 and the grand jury cam a-knockin. It doesn't sound like anyone at Penn State blew the whistle at all.
I assume the Victim I investigation started recently? Do you know why?
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 02:03:53 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:45:36 PM
finally on the what happened to the ga question, ga's in atheletic departments typically only have one or two year terms and then they graduate in their program and move on naturally
Apparently that is not what happened to this guy though. One wonders...
agree; that's a new fact to me and it that seems to suggest that he might have been complicitous at one time, and has more recently decided to blow the whistle; very curious indeed
this is especially troubling considering that the whole perjury case is built on his testimony being more credible to the grand jury than schultz or curley's ...curley would have therefore been his ultimate boss at the time of their respective testimony
I'm peicing things together - sounds like another boy was invetigated at first (who was described as Victim 1), and then the investigation widened to Victim 2 and the grand jury cam a-knockin. It doesn't sound like anyone at Penn State blew the whistle at all.
hmmmm :hmm:
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:56:12 PM
to the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that others in the adminstration with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover
Your assumption requires not only that the administration shield JoPa, but also that every cop and investigators and clerk with knowledge of the case also shield JoPa from knowing, to the extent of not even interviewing him as part of the case. I don't think I buy the idea that such a conspiracy is reasonable. Possible, yes, but not at all likely.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:56:12 PM
to the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that others in the adminstration with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover
Your assumption requires not only that the administration shield JoPa, but also that every cop and investigators and clerk with knowledge of the case also shield JoPa from knowing, to the extent of not even interviewing him as part of the case. I don't think I buy the idea that such a conspiracy is reasonable. Possible, yes, but not at all likely.
You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 02:05:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 02:03:53 PM
I'm peicing things together - sounds like another boy was invetigated at first (who was described as Victim 1), and then the investigation widened to Victim 2 and the grand jury cam a-knockin. It doesn't sound like anyone at Penn State blew the whistle at all.
I assume the Victim I investigation started recently? Do you know why?
Everything I know is from reading the report.
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2011/1107/espn_e_Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Looks like Victim 1's mother became aware of what was going on, who told the boys school, who finally reported it to the police. This was in 2008.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 01:56:12 PM
to the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that others in the adminstration with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover
Your assumption requires not only that the administration shield JoPa, but also that every cop and investigators and clerk with knowledge of the case also shield JoPa from knowing, to the extent of not even interviewing him as part of the case. I don't think I buy the idea that such a conspiracy is reasonable. Possible, yes, but not at all likely.
i don't believe that my assumption requires that at all
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:03:42 PM
i agree; thety whole thing is both far more complicated and far smellier than first appears
The idea that a GA would end up as a coach isn't at all complicated, as far as I can see. The majority of coaches are former GAs. This is normal career progression. There are only 2 GAs per team, so one of them getting a perm job isn't unlikely.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:13:25 PM
i don't believe that my assumption requires that at all
Only if you assume that JoPa didn't know about the 1992 investigation. If you assume he did know, then you need not assume a conspiracy to keep him from knowing.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:13:33 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:03:42 PM
i agree; thety whole thing is both far more complicated and far smellier than first appears
The idea that a GA would end up as a coach isn't at all complicated, as far as I can see. The majority of coaches are former GAs. This is normal career progression. There are only 2 GAs per team, so one of them getting a perm job isn't unlikely.
You would fail at being an investigator.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston. The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead. They found his computer in a river.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University Police and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston. The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead. They found his computer in a river.
Whhhaaaaaaaaaaaa??????
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 02:17:07 PM
Whhhaaaaaaaaaaaa??????
No shit, man. Apparently they declared him legally dead either this year or last year.
Edit: Here he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Gricar
Declared dead on 25 July 2011.
What kind of law suit is Pedo State looking forward to? How much?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 01:59:14 PM
I dont see why Paterno would be involved in an investigation of that incident. He did not witness it he merely passed on what he was told. We also dont know what Paterno was told of the results of the investigation - if any.
But surely if you're told that someone saw your deputy rape a child you follow that up. If you get told that they've been fiddling their expenses you kick it upstairs and leave it at that. But with this sort of thing surely you'd want to know what's going on with the investigation and what's been found.
Isn't there a simpler explanation?
The GA sees the incident, and reports it up the chain. He doesn't put things as boldly as in the grand jury testimony, maybe because he then wouldn't be believed considering it was such a respected figure and was frightened by the implications.
The coaches and administrators that hear the story don't launch a full investigation because of a combination of they don't want the scandal and they can't believe the worst.
Everyone involved (except Paterno perhaps) is a sycophant, which explains how a senile 84 year old man too weak to stand on the sidelines during games is allowed to stay in charge of a multimillion dollar business. It is also how the GA is able to get promoted (as opposed to a payoff). The GA knows what he saw, but thinks he has already spoken up. So no one rocks the boat, but when called to testify the GA tells the truth. In his mind, he probably never lied and was doing the right thing.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:13:25 PM
i don't believe that my assumption requires that at all
Only if you assume that JoPa didn't know about the 1992 investigation. If you assume he did know, then you need not assume a conspiracy to keep him from knowing.
what 1992 investigation?
i'm not assuming anything
I'm analyzing what conclusions should be reached from the known facts
to do otherwise can lead to false conclusions
Another possible factor: Penn State athletics (and college sports in general) are so concerned about bad publicity that as standard operating procedure they look the other way when presented with evidence of wrongdoing that could embarrass the program. Maybe it started with routine fights that they would keep hushed up, then maybe a DUI, maybe some recreational drug use, possibly even a sexual assault, and then when child molestation comes up that just falls into the preestablished pattern.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 02:20:21 PM
Isn't there a simpler explanation?
The GA sees the incident, and reports it up the chain. He doesn't put things as boldly as in the grand jury testimony, maybe because he then wouldn't be believed considering it was such a respected figure and was frightened by the implications.
The coaches and administrators that hear the story don't launch a full investigation because of a combination of they don't want the scandal and they can't believe the worst.
Everyone involved (except Paterno perhaps) is a sycophant, which explains how a senile 84 year old man too weak to stand on the sidelines during games is allowed to stay in charge of a multimillion dollar business. It is also how the GA is able to get promoted (as opposed to a payoff). The GA knows what he saw, but thinks he has already spoken up. So no one rocks the boat, but when called to testify the GA tells the truth. In his mind, he probably never lied and was doing the right thing.
very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston. The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead. They found his computer in a river.
Was the 1998 case the one witnessed by the witnessed by the GA?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston. The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead. They found his computer in a river.
Was the 1998 case the one witnessed by the witnessed by the GA?
no his was the 2002 incident
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2011, 02:20:07 PM
But surely if you're told that someone saw your deputy rape a child you follow that up. If you get told that they've been fiddling their expenses you kick it upstairs and leave it at that. But with this sort of thing surely you'd want to know what's going on with the investigation and what's been found.
I would want to know what occurred in either event. Which is why I think Rasputin's scenario makes the most sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:25:04 PM
Was the 1998 case the one witnessed by the witnessed by the GA?
No, it was the one involving the kid coming home and telling his mom he had taken a shower with Sandusky. The one McQueary walked in on was in 2002.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston. The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead. They found his computer in a river.
Was the 1998 case the one witnessed by the witnessed by the GA?
Was looking up the missing DA, found this page which talks about the '98 incident.
http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/06/2976046/gricar-had-final-say-in-ending.html
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:25:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston. The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead. They found his computer in a river.
Was the 1998 case the one witnessed by the witnessed by the GA?
no his was the 2002 incident
That is what I thought. So I stand by my assessment.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:24:17 PM
very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school
I think it does if you consider the investigation didn't involve the cops. What is an investigation without the cops anyway? It could be you tell the VP Finance that you saw child molestation, the VP of Finance asks a few people if they saw anything, doesn't find any major red flags, but tells Sandusky not to bring kids on campus just in case.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:26:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2011, 02:20:07 PM
But surely if you're told that someone saw your deputy rape a child you follow that up. If you get told that they've been fiddling their expenses you kick it upstairs and leave it at that. But with this sort of thing surely you'd want to know what's going on with the investigation and what's been found.
I would want to know what occurred in either event. Which is why I think Rasputin's scenario makes the most sense.
:yes:
based upon what's known thus far mine seems most consistent with the objective conduct of the players involved and my own observations as to how instituions handle complaints of sexual misconduct (although I readily concede that I've never been privy to allegations this heinous)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
That is what I thought. So I stand by my assessment.
They were talking about the 1998 incident and whether or not Paterno would have known about it. There were police and a district attorney involved. I'm pretty sure it can be called an "investigation."
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:15:41 PM
You would fail at being an investigator.
You would fail at the internet.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 02:27:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston. The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead. They found his computer in a river.
Was the 1998 case the one witnessed by the witnessed by the GA?
Was looking up the missing DA, found this page which talks about the '98 incident.
http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/06/2976046/gricar-had-final-say-in-ending.html
there's no reason to believe that this investigation would have involved any one at the school beyond sandusky based upon this description, and it's clear that the prosecutor was very sensitive to filing charges without overwhelming evidence
where an investigation itself can cause damage its reasonable to conclude that the hidden microphone might have been the main evidence gathering that he did
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:20:58 PM
i'm not assuming anything
I'm analyzing what conclusions should be reached from the known facts
to do otherwise can lead to false conclusions
No conclusions can be drawn based only on the known facts. All conclusions are potentially false. That is why assumptions must be made explicitly, and why the only correct response to "I am making no assumptions" is "bullshit! You just aren't admitting to the assumptions you are making."
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 02:23:53 PM
Another possible factor: Penn State athletics (and college sports in general) are so concerned about bad publicity that as standard operating procedure they look the other way when presented with evidence of wrongdoing that could embarrass the program. Maybe it started with routine fights that they would keep hushed up, then maybe a DUI, maybe some recreational drug use, possibly even a sexual assault, and then when child molestation comes up that just falls into the preestablished pattern.
That is certainly plausible, and in fact is maybe the only explanation that makes sense to me. Of course, that makes the situation for PSU much worse, since it implies a lack of institutional control so severe the system cannot handle even severe crime.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:24:17 PM
very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school
But no one made any effort to distance Sandusky from the school. I think this dog won't hunt.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:36:27 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:20:58 PM
i'm not assuming anything
I'm analyzing what conclusions should be reached from the known facts
to do otherwise can lead to false conclusions
No conclusions can be drawn based only on the known facts. All conclusions are potentially false. That is why assumptions must be made explicitly, and why the only correct response to "I am making no assumptions" is "bullshit! You just aren't admitting to the assumptions you are making."
i am not making assumptions
i know the difference between assumptions and fact; you've yet to identify an assumption that i've made
i will concede that i've speculated on what might be based on matters not yet known but i've not reached any conclusions and only offfered theories where i freely admit that we don't yet have enough facts
you on the other hand are uncharacteristically quick to judgment with suggestions as to what must necessarily be without regard to whether we have any fact that supports these matters as of yet
it is characteristically an argument based largely on semantics
you'
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 02:29:15 PM
I think it does if you consider the investigation didn't involve the cops. What is an investigation without the cops anyway? It could be you tell the VP Finance that you saw child molestation, the VP of Finance asks a few people if they saw anything, doesn't find any major red flags, but tells Sandusky not to bring kids on campus just in case.
There doesn't appear to have been any 2002 investigation. Such an investigation would surely have involved McQueary, Paterno, and McQueasry's father. They all say they were aware of no such action. And no one told Sandusky not to bring kids on campus any more; they just told him not to take them into the locker rooms.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:47:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 02:29:15 PM
I think it does if you consider the investigation didn't involve the cops. What is an investigation without the cops anyway? It could be you tell the VP Finance that you saw child molestation, the VP of Finance asks a few people if they saw anything, doesn't find any major red flags, but tells Sandusky not to bring kids on campus just in case.
There doesn't appear to have been any 2002 investigation. Such an investigation would surely have involved McQueary, Paterno, and McQueasry's father. They all say they were aware of no such action. And no one told Sandusky not to bring kids on campus any more; they just told him not to take them into the locker rooms.
Well, the 2002 'investigation' involved Paterno telling Curley, then Curley and Schultz questioning McQueary about the incident. The response was to tell Sandusky he couldn't bring any kids around the school.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:24:17 PM
very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school
But no one made any effort to distance Sandusky from the school. I think this dog won't hunt.
they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus
my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story
if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation
given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2011, 12:40:47 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 12:39:38 PM
No I missed it. I understand he was talking about killing Sandusky or kicking his ass or something?
Not in what I saw. It was just "these are little kids...sob sob sob"
Millen has commented on this a couple of times now and in one of the commentaries I saw he did say his instinct is to take matters in to his own hands or something of that nature, but he quickly clarified that this ultimately needs to be handled in court.
There's no great mystery here. The school is rotten to the core just like the Catholic church.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:49:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:24:17 PM
very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school
But no one made any effort to distance Sandusky from the school. I think this dog won't hunt.
they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus
my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story
if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation
given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school
Depends what you mean by investigation. Curleys investigation (if you can call it that) was limited to asking McQueary about the incident.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:49:57 PM
they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus
my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story
if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation
given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school
A lot hinges on what investigation was actually done, and what it turned up. There wasn't really a reason for Sandusky to bring kids onto campus in the first place, so telling him to stop doesn't necessarily mean they came across evidence. They may have thought they were providing CYA to the school in case of the worst. It seems a real investigation was never conducted (at least, not with the police), so I'd assume the word "investigation" is being used by the administration very broadly to cover the fact they only dis a cursory look into things.
The alternative is that an investigation was launched, and was able to substantiate the GA's account. While that is possible, I find it unlikely that multiple grown men would be confronted with knowledge of a child rapist and tell him just to stay away from campus. If that happened, then I would think these people are every bit as evil as Sandusky. Maybe more so.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:44:54 PM
i am not making assumptions
i know the difference between assumptions and fact; you've yet to identify an assumption that i've made
:huh:
Quote1. he is told by a graduate assistant that he witnessed sandusky (assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events) in the shower with a boy who appeared about ten;
4. he is not on the campus because of joe pa but instead because of his charity (apparently at the will of a department other than athletics);
5. if we accept that thus far there is no known fact which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation;
6. joe pa nontheless reports it to his boss and to the head of the department at penn state who is letting sandusky run this charity on penn state property.
QuoteI agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
No reason to assume that he doesn't know. Clearly, since you don't believe in the changed game, you must be assuming/speculating he didn't know, since there are no known facts to support that position.
Quotei will concede that i've speculated on what might be based on matters not yet known but i've not reached any conclusions and only offfered theories where i freely admit that we don't yet have enough facts
That is all anyone can do.
Quoteyou on the other hand are uncharacteristically quick to judgment with suggestions as to what must necessarily be without regard to whether we have any fact that supports these matters as of yet
You are uncharacteristically misreading my position. I am simply providing reasons why one assumption (or speculation, if you prefer) seems more plausible than another. The assumption/speculation that there was a secret investigation in 1998 and another in 2002 seems to me completely unfounded and illogical.
Quoteit is characteristically an argument based largely on semantics you'
I don't know of a single instance in which we have debated word meaning. If you are going to "characteristically" make this a matter of semantics, then what is the word whose meaning you dispute?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
That is what I thought. So I stand by my assessment.
They were talking about the 1998 incident and whether or not Paterno would have known about it. There were police and a district attorney involved. I'm pretty sure it can be called an "investigation."
I am not sure what you were talking about. We were talking about the GA witnessing the boy being anally raped and what occurred after that. BB then noted there were other matters.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:49:57 PM
they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus
my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story
if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation
given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school
A lot hinges on what investigation was actually done, and what it turned up. There wasn't really a reason for Sandusky to bring kids onto campus in the first place, so telling him to stop doesn't necessarily mean they came across evidence. They may have thought they were providing CYA to the school in case of the worst. It seems a real investigation was never conducted (at least, not with the police), so I'd assume the word "investigation" is being used by the administration very broadly to cover the fact they only dis a cursory look into things.
The alternative is that an investigation was launched, and was able to substantiate the GA's account. While that is possible, I find it unlikely that multiple grown men would be confronted with knowledge of a child rapist and tell him just to stay away from campus. If that happened, then I would think these people are every bit as evil as Sandusky. Maybe more so.
Investigations by Universities into allegations of misconduct on their premises is pretty common so I am not sure what you mean by the word being used "very broadly". I agree entirely that if there was an investigation and it was covered up that the people that did that are every bit as evil. That is the point.
Edit: actually if there was no investigation they are also evil. Insitutionally I find it harder to believe that no one did anything about the allegation.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:49:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:24:17 PM
very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school
But no one made any effort to distance Sandusky from the school. I think this dog won't hunt.
they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus
my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story
if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation
given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school
Depends what you mean by investigation. Curleys investigation (if you can call it that) was limited to asking McQueary about the incident.
i believe that there was likely more to it; although clearly there is presently no objective evidence of that having occured
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 03:09:58 PM
I am not sure what you were talking about. We were talking about the GA witnessing the boy being anally raped and what occurred after that. BB then noted there were other matters.
:huh:
Quote from: PLJSecond, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
Quote from: gDo you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it? Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible. And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.
Quote from: PLJto the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that others in the adminstration with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover
Quote from: gYour assumption requires not only that the administration shield JoPa, but also that every cop and investigators and clerk with knowledge of the case also shield JoPa from knowing, to the extent of not even interviewing him as part of the case. I don't think I buy the idea that such a conspiracy is reasonable. Possible, yes, but not at all likely.
Quote from: youYou are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us. There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!). This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.
Quote from: meThe 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston. The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead. They found his computer in a river.
They're all quoting the one above (except PLJ's first, which is just the part g quoted).
e: I should have made this a big quote pyramid. I missed my chance.
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2011, 02:51:25 PM
There's no great mystery here. The school is rotten to the core just like the Catholic church.
It's because in America, football occupies some of the field religion used to. ;)
Evidently, a little anal rape of minors wasn't going to be allowed to get in the way of delivering a quality football program ...
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 03:16:39 PM
They're all quoting the one above (except PLJ's first, which is just the part g quoted).
And I think they all come after Grumbler jumped in with his semantics which came after the discussion about the 2002 event and BB bringing up the fact that there was another victim. I can see now how you and I are thinking about different things.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 03:02:46 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 02:44:54 PM
i am not making assumptions
i know the difference between assumptions and fact; you've yet to identify an assumption that i've made
:huh:
Quote1. he is told by a graduate assistant that he witnessed sandusky (assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events) in the shower with a boy who appeared about ten;
4. he is not on the campus because of joe pa but instead because of his charity (apparently at the will of a department other than athletics);
5. if we accept that thus far there is no known fact which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation;
6. joe pa nontheless reports it to his boss and to the head of the department at penn state who is letting sandusky run this charity on penn state property.
QuoteI agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.
No reason to assume that he doesn't know. Clearly, since you don't believe in the changed game, you must be assuming/speculating he didn't know, since there are no known facts to support that position.
Quotei will concede that i've speculated on what might be based on matters not yet known but i've not reached any conclusions and only offfered theories where i freely admit that we don't yet have enough facts
That is all anyone can do.
Quoteyou on the other hand are uncharacteristically quick to judgment with suggestions as to what must necessarily be without regard to whether we have any fact that supports these matters as of yet
You are uncharacteristically misreading my position. I am simply providing reasons why one assumption (or speculation, if you prefer) seems more plausible than another. The assumption/speculation that there was a secret investigation in 1998 and another in 2002 seems to me completely unfounded and illogical.
Quoteit is characteristically an argument based largely on semantics you'
I don't know of a single instance in which we have debated word meaning. If you are going to "characteristically" make this a matter of semantics, then what is the word whose meaning you dispute?
there was an investigation by police into allegations of sandusky miscoconduct in 1998
there is no known investigation by any reasonable definition in 2002 but i am speculating that one occured and was buried
i noted that one has to assume joe pa's version of events to reach the conclusion that he acted reasoanably because if one assumes the ga's version of events then its pretty clear joe pa acted unreasonably
my point in this context (which i think you know pretty well) is simply that if you accept joe pa's testimony to the grand jury, there is no known fact which leads to the conclusion he did anything wrong
i dont see where i assumed anything in reaching any conclusion about the case because we simply dont yet have enough known facts; right now this case turns on whether to believe the ga or the admintrators (as it relates to penn state's culpability as opposed to sandusky's)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 03:13:47 PM
Investigations by Universities into allegations of misconduct on their premises is pretty common so I am not sure what you mean by the word being used "very broadly". I agree entirely that if there was an investigation and it was covered up that the people that did that are every bit as evil. That is the point.
Edit: actually if there was no investigation they are also evil. Insitutionally I find it harder to believe that no one did anything about the allegation.
What I meant by "very broadly" is that if I ask you to tell me what you saw, I am technically "investigating" and there was an "investigation." I somehow doubt there was a real investigation, because these sorts of charges are investigated by police and law enforcement, and in this case we know they weren't.
I don't know what happened, but I would think that they were able to convince themselves that the charges were largely based on a misunderstanding rather than confronting the reality. Somehow these people had to live with themselves, just as the GA did.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 03:20:13 PM
And I think they all come after Grumbler jumped in with his semantics which came after the discussion about the 2002 event and BB bringing up the fact that there was another victim. I can see now how you and I are thinking about different things.
Oh I dunno about that. I just knew, or thought, they were talking about the 1998 investigation at that point.
I'm currently a sports radio junkie listening to the shows about this, which I don't tend to bother with. The ESPN guys seem to keep recycling stuff though, making it remarkably similar to what they do on TV. They do have their own comments that they're putting in there as well, along with responses to callers, etc. Finebaum has Joe Tessitore on, which meant I listened for precisely the amount of time it took to find that out.
Don't know who else is on aside from van Pelt and Finebaum right now though.
Reports now coming out that Penn State's President is about to resign.
Quote from: Caliga on November 09, 2011, 03:28:14 PM
Reports now coming out that Penn State's President is about to resign.
Damn.
Here is an article published April of this year: http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html
QuoteThe Jerry Sandusky situation seems a matter of failure to connect certain dots, or perhaps unwillingness in that regard. Lots of people besides the former Penn State defensive coordinator have some explaining to do.
Allegations of improper conduct with an underage male first surfaced in 1998, while Sandusky was still employed by Penn State. That incident allegedly occurred in a shower at Penn State's on-campus football facility. No charges were filed.
Sandusky retired the next year, in 1999. He was 55, prime age for a coach. Odd, to say the least - especially with Joe Paterno thought even then to be ready to quit and Sandusky a likely, openly-discussed successor.
It seems logical to ask: What did Paterno know, and when did he know it? What did Penn State's administration know, and when did they know it?
Best-case scenario: Charges are never brought, and Sandusky walks away with his reputation permanently scarred. The rumors, the jokes, the sideways glances - they won't ever stop. Paterno and Penn State do the great escape.
Worst-case scenario: Sandusky is charged. Then it seems reasonable to wonder: Did Penn State not make an issue of Sandusky's alleged behavior in 1998 in exchange for him walking away from the program at an age premature for most coaches? Did Penn State's considerable influence help get Sandusky off the hook?
Don't kid yourself. That could happen. Don't underestimate the power of Paterno and Penn State in central Pennsylvania when it comes to politicians, the police and the media.
In 1999, Penn State was rid of Sandusky. His rep was unblemished, which allowed him to continue running a charitable foundation that gave him access to underage males. To be a volunteer assistant with a high school football team, thus gaining access to underage males.
If Paterno and Penn State knew, but didn't act, instead facilitating Sandusky's untroubled retirement - are Paterno and Penn State responsible for untoward acts since committed by Sandusky?
This is far from an outrageous hypothesis, especially given the convenient timeline.
Initially accused in 1998. Retires in 1999. Never coaches college football again. Sandusky was very successful at what he did. The architect of Linebacker U. Helped win national championships in 1982 and 1986. Recognized as college football's top assistant in 1986 and 1999.
Never any stories about Sandusky being pursued for a high-profile job. Never any rumors about him coming out of retirement.
But there's no shortage of stories and rumors about Penn State football sweeping problems under the rug, is there?
Why did college football let an accomplished coach like Sandusky walk away at 55? Why did he disappear into relative anonymity?
A grand jury, spurred by a complaint made by a 15-year-old boy in 2009, has been investigating Sandusky for 18 months. Witnesses include Paterno and Penn State athletic director Tim Curley. Interviewing Paterno about a subject like this had to have been one of the single most uncomfortable acts in the history of jurisprudence.
Plenty of questions remain yet unanswered. Potentially among them: What's more important, Penn State football or the welfare of a few kids?
You might not want to hear the answer.
Now I do not have a smoking gun here but why the F would Joe Paterno fire his DC, the 1999 Asistant Coach of the Year in College Football: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFCA_Coach_of_the_Year#Assistant_Coach_of_the_Year_Award
right after his team beats Texas A&M 24-0? Then this dude never coaches again. At age 55, the heir apparant and legendary DC who is credited for making Penn State Linebacker U? And Joe Pa knew nothing about the 1998 investigation? Why was Sandusky fired in 1999? Anybody? And don't think he "retired", read the indictment. He was freaking fired.
Listen to this interview: http://kznx-am.tritondigitalmedia.com/includes/news_items/6/6141/brooksinterview11711.mp3
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 03:27:13 PM
What I meant by "very broadly" is that if I ask you to tell me what you saw, I am technically "investigating" and there was an "investigation." I somehow doubt there was a real investigation, because these sorts of charges are investigated by police and law enforcement, and in this case we know they weren't.
I don't know what happened, but I would think that they were able to convince themselves that the charges were largely based on a misunderstanding rather than confronting the reality. Somehow these people had to live with themselves, just as the GA did.
I agree that this conduct (to be clear the 2002 incident) is criminal and should have been investigated by the police but as you say we know it was not. But that does not exclude the possbility that there was an internal investigation where the allegations of the GA were looked into by the University. We do not know for sure what Paterno was told by the GA and we iirc we know nothing about what Paterno told the University.
One possible scenario is that by the time it got to a decision maker at the University it was boiled down to an allegation of sexual misconduct without a lot of particulars and an investigation was begun (that would be the normal course at most universities). Of course where this went off the rails in this scenario is that once the details were learned after the GA was interviewed the police should have been notified immediately.
Quote from: Caliga on November 09, 2011, 03:28:14 PM
Reports now coming out that Penn State's President is about to resign.
Probably a race to see if he resigns before being fired.
at valmy:
exactly; the more one peels back the onion the more complex and smellier this whole case gets
perhaps there's no 2002 investigation after all, because the adminstration already knows that the ga's claims are likely true based upon what it learned and concealed in 98?
further has anyone considered the university of miami's role in this; i just got off the phone with a member of their board of trustees who is positively gleefully that everyone has forgotten that they even exist -- while it seems like mere coincidence, i sure distrust those fuckers and we ought not forget that they deserve the death penalty
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 03:57:28 PM
I agree that this conduct (to be clear the 2002 incident) is criminal and should have been investigated by the police but as you say we know it was not. But that does not exclude the possbility that there was an internal investigation where the allegations of the GA were looked into by the University. We do not know for sure what Paterno was told by the GA and we iirc we know nothing about what Paterno told the University.
One possible scenario is that by the time it got to a decision maker at the University it was boiled down to an allegation of sexual misconduct without a lot of particulars and an investigation was begun (that would be the normal course at most universities). Of course where this went off the rails in this scenario is that once the details were learned after the GA was interviewed the police should have been notified immediately.
Actually, that is a good point. Maybe rather than the GA reporting what he said to the grand jury, it was reported along the lines of sexual harrassment and investigated by HR.
But if this was reported as rape or even fondling, who would investigate that if not the police? Save law enforcement, no one is going to be trained to do so, and anyone with common sense is going to refuse to take over such an investigation.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 03:59:18 PM
at valmy:
exactly; the more one peels back the onion the more complex and smellier this whole case gets
perhaps there's no 2002 investigation after all, because the adminstration already knows that the ga's claims are likely true based upon what it learned and concealed in 98?
That thought absolutely crossed my mind. They might have huddled to figure out how to handle it.
Quotefurther has anyone considered the university of miami's role in this; i just got off the phone with a member of their board of trustees who is positively gleefully that everyone has forgotten that they even exist -- while it seems like mere coincidence, i sure distrust those fuckers and we ought not forget that they deserve the death penalty
Sickening. Really?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 03:57:28 PM
I agree that this conduct (to be clear the 2002 incident) is criminal and should have been investigated by the police but as you say we know it was not. But that does not exclude the possbility that there was an internal investigation where the allegations of the GA were looked into by the University. We do not know for sure what Paterno was told by the GA and we iirc we know nothing about what Paterno told the University.
One possible scenario is that by the time it got to a decision maker at the University it was boiled down to an allegation of sexual misconduct without a lot of particulars and an investigation was begun (that would be the normal course at most universities). Of course where this went off the rails in this scenario is that once the details were learned after the GA was interviewed the police should have been notified immediately.
Actually, that is a good point. Maybe rather than the GA reporting what he said to the grand jury, it was reported along the lines of sexual harrassment and investigated by HR.
But if this was reported as rape or even fondling, who would investigate that if not the police? Save law enforcement, no one is going to be trained to do so, and anyone with common sense is going to refuse to take over such an investigation.
I agree if this was reported as sex with a 10 year old boy in any form the police should have been called. But even that does not exclude the possibility of an internal investigation and normally internal discipline procedures will work in tandem with or follow the police investigation. At least if people are acting properly.
In this case it will be very interesting to learn what really happened. What we do know sure looks like a cover up of epic proportions.
A lot of you guys keep saying "if this, if that", just read the Grand Jury report.
Warning - This document is tremendously disturbing.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 04:15:58 PM
Quotefurther has anyone considered the university of miami's role in this; i just got off the phone with a member of their board of trustees who is positively gleefully that everyone has forgotten that they even exist -- while it seems like mere coincidence, i sure distrust those fuckers and we ought not forget that they deserve the death penalty
Sickening. Really?
dont get me wrong; i dont think he was happy that sandusky is pediophile
it was however clear that he was thrilled to have the spotlight on penn state and off of miami's problems
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 04:23:09 PM
A lot of you guys keep saying "if this, if that", just read the Grand Jury report.
Does the Grand Jury report tell us the answers to what we are discussing - ie does it tell us what happened after the Ga told Paterno and Paterno passed it up the line?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 04:23:09 PM
A lot of you guys keep saying "if this, if that", just read the Grand Jury report.
Warning - This document is tremendously disturbing.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
i've read the report carefully and in fact it's the report that raises all of these "if this then that" scenarios
you do understand that the report merely summarizes what the witnesses testified to and as it relates to the testimony of schultz, joe pa, curely and the ga their testimony differs on some of they key conversations about what people were told what and when?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 04:19:49 PM
In this case it will be very interesting to learn what really happened. What we do know sure looks like a cover up of epic proportions.
I agree--but I have to think it is a case of an institutional failure where the standard operating procedure was designed to avoid bad publicity in mundane cases rather than an active cover up. I have more faith in humanity than to think that people knowing what was going on covered it up. I could be wrong.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 04:24:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 04:23:09 PM
A lot of you guys keep saying "if this, if that", just read the Grand Jury report.
Does the Grand Jury report tell us the answers to what we are discussing - ie does it tell us what happened after the Ga told Paterno and Paterno passed it up the line?
read the preamble and victim two and you'll have the gist of it
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 04:19:49 PM
In this case it will be very interesting to learn what really happened. What we do know sure looks like a cover up of epic proportions.
I agree--but I have to think it is a case of an institutional failure where the standard operating procedure was designed to avoid bad publicity in mundane cases rather than an active cover up. I have more faith in humanity than to think that people knowing what was going on covered it up. I could be wrong.
As i know one of the key players, I hope you are right
As I view the known evidence, I believe that you will likely be wrong
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 04:23:26 PM
dont get me wrong; i dont think he was happy that sandusky is pediophile
it was however clear that he was thrilled to have the spotlight on penn state and off of miami's problems
Oh it sounds like the details of the issue do not matter to him at all. He just thinks this scandal is an opportunity for Miami to escape its own crap. Which is disgusting.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 03:59:18 PMfurther has anyone considered the university of miami's role in this; i just got off the phone with a member of their board of trustees who is positively gleefully that everyone has forgotten that they even exist -- while it seems like mere coincidence, i sure distrust those fuckers and we ought not forget that they deserve the death penalty
What happened at University of Miami?
Quote from: Jacob on November 09, 2011, 04:37:34 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 03:59:18 PMfurther has anyone considered the university of miami's role in this; i just got off the phone with a member of their board of trustees who is positively gleefully that everyone has forgotten that they even exist -- while it seems like mere coincidence, i sure distrust those fuckers and we ought not forget that they deserve the death penalty
What happened at University of Miami?
Miami has its own scandal going on about payments and perks to athletes which is then dwarfed by this scandal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 09, 2011, 03:28:14 PM
Reports now coming out that Penn State's President is about to resign.
Probably a race to see if he resigns before being fired.
Really? As far as I know, he wasn't personally implicated at all - or was he?
Resignation seems almost to indicate that there was a cover-up - and he played a part, and knows it will come out.
I just saw an article on salon.com that Sandusky and Paterno are both registered republicans.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/09/jerry_sandusky_and_joe_paterno_registered_republicans/
Federal government is starting to get involved.
www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-investigate-penn-states-handling-sexual-misconduct-alleg
QuoteU.S. Department of Education to Investigate Penn State's Handling of Sexual Misconduct Allegations
November 9, 2011
Contact:
Press Office, (202) 401-1576, [email protected]
The U.S. Department of Education will launch an investigation into whether Penn State University failed to comply with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act) in regard to allegations of sex offenses on campus by a former school official. Former Penn State Defensive Coach Jerry Sandusky has been charged with sexually abusing several young boys over several years, including incidents on campus.
Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities are required to disclose the number of criminal offenses on campus that are reported each year. In addition, in certain cases, the institution must issue a timely warning if a reported crime represents a threat to the campus community. The U.S. Department of Education is responsible for Clery Act compliance.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, "If these allegations of sexual abuse are true then this is a horrible tragedy for those young boys. If it turns out that some people at the school knew of the abuse and did nothing or covered it up, that makes it even worse. Schools and school officials have a legal and moral responsibility to protect children and young people from violence and abuse."
The investigation of Clery Act violations will be conducted by the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA). DOE officials formally notified Penn State of the investigation in a letter today. As the FSA investigation proceeds, the Office for Civil Rights will also assess whether further investigations or enforcement actions are warranted.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 06:53:22 PM
Federal government is starting to get involved.
Clearly prompted by that bombshell from Salon.
The Westboro Baptist Church is planning to protest at the next Penn State game. They are calling Joe Paterno the "Pope of Happy Valley": http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/westboro_baptist_church_plans_2.html
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 02:49:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 02:47:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 02:29:15 PM
I think it does if you consider the investigation didn't involve the cops. What is an investigation without the cops anyway? It could be you tell the VP Finance that you saw child molestation, the VP of Finance asks a few people if they saw anything, doesn't find any major red flags, but tells Sandusky not to bring kids on campus just in case.
There doesn't appear to have been any 2002 investigation. Such an investigation would surely have involved McQueary, Paterno, and McQueasry's father. They all say they were aware of no such action. And no one told Sandusky not to bring kids on campus any more; they just told him not to take them into the locker rooms.
Well, the 2002 'investigation' involved Paterno telling Curley, then Curley and Schultz questioning McQueary about the incident. The response was to tell Sandusky he couldn't bring any kids around the school.
I have head more than one radio interview where people have said Sandusky attended PSU football practice in 2007 with a young boy. He was also working out in the PSU football weight room lat week.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police. University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston.
That was the first mistake regarding contacting the police; namely, the wrong police.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 09, 2011, 07:35:36 PM
That was the first mistake regarding contacting the police; namely, the wrong police.
It sounds like they were actually doing their jobs (Shreffler was the campus cop, Ralston was the State College guy IIRC), until the head of the campus police told them to shut it down, the DA decided not to prosecute, and so on.
They were at least looking in to it and were checking out a possible second victim, etc. Then it...went away...and dude was "retired" fairly soon after.
All this is IIRC now. I don't feel like looking at that pdf anymore.
Well, you'd never see anything like this happen at Florida State. They're just gay. GAY FOR THAT PUSSY
I would just like to point out that I am restraining myself from making any comment. At all.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2011, 05:47:50 PM
I just saw an article on salon.com that Sandusky and Paterno are both registered republicans.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/09/jerry_sandusky_and_joe_paterno_registered_republicans/
Sandusky is also a homosexual.
Martinusists should be rounded up and punished as accessories.
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2011, 04:39:32 PMMiami has its own scandal going on about payments and perks to athletes which is then dwarfed by this scandal.
Thanks :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 09, 2011, 07:46:36 PM
Well, you'd never see anything like this happen at Florida State. They're just gay. GAY FOR THAT PUSSY
:lol:
Our sex scandals involve hot coeds!!!
Paterno has hired a "crisis PR specialist."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/11/joe-paterno-hires-his-own-crisis-pr-spin-doctor-penn-state-dan-mcginn-jerry-sandusky-/1
Also, a couple PSU board of trustees members just left the meeting, with one saying as he/she was leaving "At least we made the right decision." I wonder what that means. There is supposed to be a press conference at 10 eastern. http://twitter.com/#!/dailycollegian (http://twitter.com/#!/dailycollegian)
Heavy rumors flying around that the Board of Trustees won't let him coach another game. There's a press conference coming up at 10.
This Pittsburgh radio station has been pretty on the ball about the whole thing. The Late Night guy has absolutely amazing rants.
http://player.radio.com/player/RadioPlayer.php?version=1.2.12495&station=2105
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 09:58:55 PM
Heavy rumors flying around that the Board of Trustees won't let him coach another game. There's a press conference coming up at 10.
This Pittsburgh radio station has been pretty on the ball about the whole thing. The Late Night guy has absolutely amazing rants.
http://player.radio.com/player/RadioPlayer.php?version=1.2.12495&station=2105
He said his vocal cords can't handle so much screaming again on his twitter. :(
Edit: And he just said on the air Paterno will not coach another game according to ABC.
Tom Bradely interim head coach! :w00t:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:02:33 PM
Tom Bradely interim head coach! :w00t:
OMG how can he coach and QB for the Pats at the same time!!! :hmm: :wacko:
So, are we going to argue about the relative merits of Sandusky's contribution to society and all that?
The interim guy just got tainted.
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2011, 10:12:35 PM
The interim guy just got tainted.
I know nothing about him, but at least he didn't cover up child rape.
Yep. It's official. They just announced at the press conference that he was being shitcanned.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:14:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2011, 10:12:35 PM
The interim guy just got tainted.
I know nothing about him, but at least he didn't cover up child rape.
How long has he been affiliated with the Penn State football program?
EDIT: If that McQuery fucker is on the sidelines on Saturday I hope someone puts a hit out on him.
Will the university be in ruins tomorrow morning? :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:14:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2011, 10:12:35 PM
The interim guy just got tainted.
I know nothing about him, but at least he didn't cover up child rape.
I'd be better disposed towards him if he had.
Glad to see the Board of Trustees did the right thing.
Overreacted and covered their asses? That's always a good idea, but it won't help them.
That press conference was ridiculous. Half of those journalists should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:39:23 PM
That press conference was ridiculous. Half of those journalists should be dragged out into the street and shot.
I know.
That press conference was incredible. :lmfao:
Can't wait to here the radio guy I posted above crushing those reporters. I guarantee you guys will love it if you listen in.
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2011, 10:31:29 PM
Overreacted and covered their asses? That's always a good idea, but it won't help them.
Overreacted? This guy enabled a serial rapist to operate in his faciility for years and simply letting him go is a overreaction? What should they have done? Cancelled his parking permit?
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 10:47:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2011, 10:31:29 PM
Overreacted and covered their asses? That's always a good idea, but it won't help them.
Overreacted? This guy enabled a serial rapist to operate in his faciility for years and simply letting him go is a overreaction? What should they have done?
I'm somewhat unconcerned with statutory rape, even though the perpetrator was gay.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:45:37 PM
Can't wait to here the radio guy I posted above crushing those reporters. I guarantee you guys will love it if you listen in.
You weren't kidding. :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2011, 10:50:40 PM
I'm somewhat unconcerned with statutory rape, even though the perpetrator was gay.
:lol: Gotcha.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 09, 2011, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:45:37 PM
Can't wait to here the radio guy I posted above crushing those reporters. I guarantee you guys will love it if you listen in.
You weren't kidding. :lol: :lol:
Yeah that was one hell of a rant.
Yeah :lol:
A 15 minute commercial break followed. Dude must have been hurling chairs against a wall or something.
Oh my God, this guy is just killing it! :showoff:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:14:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2011, 10:12:35 PM
The interim guy just got tainted.
I know nothing about him, but at least he didn't cover up child rape.
If the first clause of that sentence is true, then there is no basis for the statement made by the second clause.
Moron.
I concede, I should have tack on as far as we know.
Looking him up he's been there 33 years so there's probably a good chance he did know.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2011, 10:54:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2011, 10:50:40 PM
I'm somewhat unconcerned with statutory rape, even though the perpetrator was gay.
:lol: Gotcha.
It's one of those crimes like marijuana use.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FU3crf.jpg&hash=2983e9ba306885d16f8a2237e9d05c892b43523a)
America has failed me. Make fire, cleanse, repeat.
I enjoyed the mini-riot. Needed more burning however.
I hope they didn't burn The Creamery. Place has good ice cream. :)
Tear gas and rubber bullets. Go West Bank on their useless asses.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:39:23 PM
That press conference was ridiculous. Half of those journalists should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Details?
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 07:57:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:39:23 PM
That press conference was ridiculous. Half of those journalists should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Details?
Let me just say it was weird to see a press conference where the firing of a University President and a football coach was announced...and there was not one question about the University President....or the incident that led to their firing.
Just: OMG how could you fire the football coach!?
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 08:57:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 07:57:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:39:23 PM
That press conference was ridiculous. Half of those journalists should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Details?
Let me just say it was weird to see a press conference where the firing of a University President and a football coach was announced...and there was not one question about the University President....or the incident that led to their firing.
Just: OMG how could you fire the football coach!?
Actually, if there were real journalists there, it could have gotten ugly for the Board I think. I watched, and it sounded like they were saying they had no information that wasn't in the public domain, all the facts aren't in on what happened, and they are firing these people because they need new direction. Which really begged the question, if the facts aren't in, and you can't definitively say what they did wrong, are you firing these people who did and gave so much to the university for so long just for PR reasons?
I think the spokesman was the chairman and CEO of US Steel--I would have expected him to be a bit more polished.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 09:04:54 AM
Actually, if there were real journalists there, it could have gotten ugly for the Board I think.
Well it should have been ugly for the board. But not for the reason it was.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 09:06:33 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 09:04:54 AM
Actually, if there were real journalists there, it could have gotten ugly for the Board I think.
Well it should have been ugly for the board. But not for the reason it was.
Why should it have been ugly?
It seems to me they are just freaked out about the bad publicity and firing anything that moves to cover their asses. They fired the president because he was briefed on the situation in 2002? I would bet he did not get the graphic story that is in the grand jury testimony, and it was probably presented to him in a way that would never give anyone pause.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 07:57:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2011, 10:39:23 PM
That press conference was ridiculous. Half of those journalists should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Details?
There were a bunch of local hacks and student journalists who ripped into the Board for firing him.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 09:11:20 AM
It seems to me they are just freaked out about the bad publicity and firing anything that moves to cover their asses.
These people should have been held accountable for this stuff years ago, they waited until the fucking District Attorney did something before they held the people in charge accountable for what damn sure appears to be a cover up. The DA were the ones who broke this story, not Penn State or the School President, not Joe Paterno, nope this story was not important enough to ever mention to anybody off campus. It was always kept in house. Now the Governor had to step in to get the BoT to do the very belated right thing.
The school probably needs a total do-over, including a new board. Last night's riots make it clear that nobody gives a shit about anything but the football program, which IMO is not acceptable. The mission of a university, ESPECIALLY a public university, is to educate people, not win football games. We have professional sports teams for that, for crying out loud!
Quote from: Caliga on November 10, 2011, 09:29:45 AM
The school probably needs a total do-over, including a new board. Last night's riots make it clear that nobody gives a shit about anything but the football program, which IMO is not acceptable. The mission of a university, ESPECIALLY a public university, is to educate people, not win football games. We have professional sports teams for that, for crying out loud!
Yep. The Governor needs to replace the entire board who then need to clean out the entire upper administration, the University Police, and the athletic department.
If they had done something back then, people would have wondered why, and then heads would have rolled the same. The coverup really was the best option.
this thing is like a modern greek tragedy (no pun intended) unfolding before us.
What a difference a year makes.
I took the following pics last year in happy valley on the night of joe pas 400th win; everyone was on top of the world....what a hard fast fall.
mr and mrs pa are on the left; spanner is speaking and curley is on the right:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc300%2Fsemis33%2Fwow.jpg&hash=186936e7ead18453c2195fdeccf8c1f78aa4e154)
joe pa and spanner
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc300%2Fsemis33%2Fjpasnnr.jpg&hash=603cba9258f3272c27f89bb714230c29ceec2eaf)
curley and spanner
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc300%2Fsemis33%2Fcrlspn.jpg&hash=bcc2761cf1ba5beb4c88e6604c2c26a3e0c8cc3b)
curley and joe pa (the university presented joe pa with a freakishly expensive trophy to commemorate the event which trophy--to curley's discomfort--looked suspiciously like the national championship trophy)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc300%2Fsemis33%2Fcurlyjpa.jpg&hash=4fcbafad58f683be698f95157eb8a7b4cd5a22e7)
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 09:30:48 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 10, 2011, 09:29:45 AM
The school probably needs a total do-over, including a new board. Last night's riots make it clear that nobody gives a shit about anything but the football program, which IMO is not acceptable. The mission of a university, ESPECIALLY a public university, is to educate people, not win football games. We have professional sports teams for that, for crying out loud!
Yep. The Governor needs to replace the entire board who then need to clean out the entire upper administration, the University Police, and the athletic department.
what evidence is there that the board of trusteees knew anything before you and i did?
a board of trustees is a policy board and theoretically can only hire and fire the president and approve tuition rates; they have limited authority in terms of day to day operations
in theory the firing of joe pa may have been an ultra vires act
as best i can tell they did their job and may have even overstepped their legal authority once this matter came to their attention
Quote from: Caliga on November 10, 2011, 09:29:45 AM
The school probably needs a total do-over, including a new board. Last night's riots make it clear that nobody gives a shit about anything but the football program, which IMO is not acceptable. The mission of a university, ESPECIALLY a public university, is to educate people, not win football games. We have professional sports teams for that, for crying out loud!
That's not going to happen.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/columnists/la-sp-plaschke-paterno-fired-20111110,0,7383813,full.column
Quote
Several decades ago, former Oklahoma University president George Lynn Cross once told the Oklahoma senate, "I want a university the football team can be proud of."
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 09:39:06 AM
what evidence is there that the board of trusteees knew anything before you and i did?
The fact there were published articles about it months ago?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 09:42:47 AM
Quote
Several decades ago, former Oklahoma University president George Lynn Cross once told the Oklahoma senate, "I want a university the football team can be proud of."
Um he was saying that to lobby for more money to develop the University. Back in those days OU was a joke of a school who had a football team and little else. They have done much better since then. I do not see how that means OU thought the purpose of their school was to win football games, it seems to me to mean the opposite.
Honestly guys - could you not imagine this very same thing happen at any of a number of "big time" football schools? The culture of winning>>>>>everything else is pretty widespread.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 09:39:06 AM
what evidence is there that the board of trusteees knew anything before you and i did?
The fact there were published articles about it months ago?
that indicated an investigation was ongoing?
it's a fair point, but i can tell you having been a the legal advisor to a college board and to a university board of trustees that these guys are inundated with potentially scandalous bs and typically only meet once a month to go over big picture matters at a mile high level; internal investigations are squrely within management's ambit; these guys oversee the president; that's their role--he does a good job...give him a raise; he does a bad job fire him
if they had actual knowledge and ignored it i'd condemn them with you
if all we have to hang our hats on is that they ignored a scandalous column speculating on a scandal that's almost beyond belief, then i respectfully suggest that you're hysteria over the severity of the crime and likely cover up by management is clouding your judgment; had you read the article before hindsight proved its accuracy? i hadn't. I dont know whether they did either; these guys all have day jobs and are typically very succesful alumni who get these appointments as a form of political patronage
we ought not throw out our laws and our reason because of the severity of the crime
what happened was evil and i wish the death penalty was available for sandusky
someone i liked and respected may have been involved in helping cover up the crime for the sake ofpthinking he was protecting his alma mater from scandal; the law is properly seeking justice for this
i am not however prepared to convict everyone associated with the university before there is evidence of their individual wrong doing
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 09:39:06 AM
what evidence is there that the board of trusteees knew anything before you and i did?
The fact there were published articles about it months ago?
that indicated an investigation was ongoing?
it's a fair point, but i can tell you having been a the legal advisor to a college board and to a university board of trustees that these guys are inundated with bs and typically only meet once a month to go over big picture matters at a mile high level; internal investigations are squrely within management's ambit; these guys overse the president
if they had actual knowledge and ignored it i'd condemn them with you
if all we have to hang our hats on is that they ignored a scandalous column sppeculating on a scandal that's almost beyond belief, then i respectfully suggest that you're hysteria over the severity of the crime and likely cover up by management is clouding your judgment
we ought not throw out our laws and our reason because of the severity of the crime
what happened was evil and i wish the death penalty was available for sandusky
someone i liked and respected may have been involved in helping cover up the crime for the sake ofpthinking he was protecting his alma mater from scandal; the law is properly seeking justice for this
i am not however prepared to convict everyone associated with the university before there is evidence of their individual wrong doing
Since all the major players testified before the grand jury they sure as hell knew an investigation was ongoing and what it was about. And, as Valmy said, there were articles published months ago outlining the basics of the allegations against Sandusky.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 09:51:40 AM
Honestly guys - could you not imagine this very same thing happen at any of a number of "big time" football schools? The culture of winning>>>>>everything else is pretty widespread.
Paterno was not only one of the most powerful head coaches of all time, he was certainly the most respected. This made Penn state especially vulnerable to this kind of thing.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 09:51:40 AM
Honestly guys - could you not imagine this very same thing happen at any of a number of "big time" football schools? The culture of winning>>>>>everything else is pretty widespread.
Well we had our own scandal where one of Mack Brown's long term assistants (Cleve Bryant) was accused of sexual harrasment with an adult woman in the Athletic Department and he was suspended immediately and an investigation was launched and he was fired. And the press was notified. I would hope that would be standard OP at any major University and that was just for inappropriate behavior not for rape or anything approaching the severity of what happened at PSU.
However I get what you are saying. And man everytime Texas starts losing there are always fans calling for unethical tactics to be used to get the team winning again. It is really nuts as if the integrity of the University these people are often alums of is a distant second to winning football games.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 10:00:39 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 09:39:06 AM
what evidence is there that the board of trusteees knew anything before you and i did?
The fact there were published articles about it months ago?
that indicated an investigation was ongoing?
it's a fair point, but i can tell you having been a the legal advisor to a college board and to a university board of trustees that these guys are inundated with bs and typically only meet once a month to go over big picture matters at a mile high level; internal investigations are squrely within management's ambit; these guys overse the president
if they had actual knowledge and ignored it i'd condemn them with you
if all we have to hang our hats on is that they ignored a scandalous column sppeculating on a scandal that's almost beyond belief, then i respectfully suggest that you're hysteria over the severity of the crime and likely cover up by management is clouding your judgment
we ought not throw out our laws and our reason because of the severity of the crime
what happened was evil and i wish the death penalty was available for sandusky
someone i liked and respected may have been involved in helping cover up the crime for the sake ofpthinking he was protecting his alma mater from scandal; the law is properly seeking justice for this
i am not however prepared to convict everyone associated with the university before there is evidence of their individual wrong doing
Since all the major players testified before the grand jury they sure as hell knew an investigation was ongoing and what it was about. And, as Valmy said, there were articles published months ago outlining the basics of the allegations against Sandusky.
i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony
I wonder how much he was paid. The Coach at MU Gary Pinkel is paid something like two million a year, which makes him by far the highest paid state employee in Missouri.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 10:06:24 AM
i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony
I'm aware that is the rule, but since I constantly hear about 'leaks' from grand jury testimony I didn't figure it was well observed. Certainly I have trouble believing that Curley et al wouldn't mention to others 'hey guys, I just spent the day testifying before the grand jury, you might want to prepare yourselves in case charges against
you know who are approved'.
And from what I understand Sandusky had been removed from the university as of 2008, so the university certainly knew something.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 10:21:21 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 10:06:24 AM
i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony
I'm aware that is the rule, but since I constantly hear about 'leaks' from grand jury testimony I didn't figure it was well observed. Certainly I have trouble believing that Curley et al wouldn't mention to others 'hey guys, I just spent the day testifying before the grand jury, you might want to prepare yourselves in case charges against you know who are approved'.
And from what I understand Sandusky had been removed from the university as of 2008, so the university certainly knew something.
i agree that the evidence suggests that the university knew sandusky was a problem and the nature of the problem
I'm also prepared to accept, until the evidence suggests otherwise, that the same cabal of mangement who worked so hard to conceal the problem from the outside world, would have worked very hard to conceal the same issue from the board of trustees whose political loyalties are not with school management but instead lie with the governor who appointed them
joe pa reported to curley
curley and schutz reported to spanner
the board was spanner's boss
the board answers only to the governor
as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check
:bleeding:
http://phillysportsdaily.com/college/2011/11/10/allegation-sandusky-pimped-out-kids/
Quote
Allegation: Sandusky "Pimped Out" Kids
By: Philly Sports Daily Staff on November 10, 2011 9:31 am
Pittsburgh talk show host Mark Madden, who wrote an article seven months ago that foretold of the events that have unfolded over the last week, made an explosive allegation Thursday morning on a Boston radio station.
"There is a rumor ... Jerry Sandusky and The Second Mile were 'pimping out' kids to rich donors," Madden said on WEEI-AM.
Madden continued on, saying that Sandusky was forced into retirement in 1999 at the age of 55 in exchange for a cover-up of the alleged 1998 sexual assault.
"Jerry Sandusky was told he had to retire in exchange for the cover-up."
The entire audio is here.
(http://audio.weei.com/a/48513317/mark-madden-talks-about-the-penn-state-scandal-and-drops-a-new-bomb-about-jerry-sandusky.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Madden makes the allegation at about the 7:30 mark of the audio.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 09:24:41 AM
These people should have been held accountable for this stuff years ago, they waited until the fucking District Attorney did something before they held the people in charge accountable for what damn sure appears to be a cover up. The DA were the ones who broke this story, not Penn State or the School President, not Joe Paterno, nope this story was not important enough to ever mention to anybody off campus. It was always kept in house. Now the Governor had to step in to get the BoT to do the very belated right thing.
Again, I don't know the details. For all I know the president of the school knew everything and actively covered this up and is going to end up in jail. But just based on the grand jury testimony, he was informed that there was an investigation of some sort in 2002, and it was resolved with Sandusky not allowed to bring children on campus. That seems a very tenuous reason to fire someone, even if there were later stories that a grand jury was investigating other incidents with Sandusky. Did you want the president to have the university launch its own investigation while the grand jury investigation was ongoing? Do you think that would be appreciated, and don't you think that could be viewed very suspiciously?
It is possible that there is a lot more that Board knows beyond the grand jury testimony, but for legal reasons was not stating that and not providing other reasons for terminations. But I think a solid line of questioning on this could have made the Board look foolish last night.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 10:36:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 10:21:21 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 10:06:24 AM
i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony
I'm aware that is the rule, but since I constantly hear about 'leaks' from grand jury testimony I didn't figure it was well observed. Certainly I have trouble believing that Curley et al wouldn't mention to others 'hey guys, I just spent the day testifying before the grand jury, you might want to prepare yourselves in case charges against you know who are approved'.
And from what I understand Sandusky had been removed from the university as of 2008, so the university certainly knew something.
i agree that the evidence suggests that the university knew sandusky was a problem and the nature of the problem
I'm also prepared to accept, until the evidence suggests otherwise, that the same cabal of mangement who worked so hard to conceal the problem from the outside world, would have worked very hard to conceal the same issue from the board of trustees whose political loyalties are not with school management but instead lie with the governor who appointed them
joe pa reported to curley
curley and schutz reported to spanner
the board was spanner's boss
the board answers only to the governor
as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check
This goes to the top. Impeach the governor!
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 10:36:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 10:21:21 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 10:06:24 AM
i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony
I'm aware that is the rule, but since I constantly hear about 'leaks' from grand jury testimony I didn't figure it was well observed. Certainly I have trouble believing that Curley et al wouldn't mention to others 'hey guys, I just spent the day testifying before the grand jury, you might want to prepare yourselves in case charges against you know who are approved'.
And from what I understand Sandusky had been removed from the university as of 2008, so the university certainly knew something.
i agree that the evidence suggests that the university knew sandusky was a problem and the nature of the problem
I'm also prepared to accept, until the evidence suggests otherwise, that the same cabal of mangement who worked so hard to conceal the problem from the outside world, would have worked very hard to conceal the same issue from the board of trustees whose political loyalties are not with school management but instead lie with the governor who appointed them
joe pa reported to curley
curley and schutz reported to spanner
the board was spanner's boss
the board answers only to the governor
as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check
This goes to the top. Impeach the governor!
exactly and what of the electors of pennsylvania who chose a governor capable of appointing such an incompetent board? what shall we do with them?
perhaps we ought to cede the colony back to mother england?
It doesn't matter what the laws are and what the board knew. There will be enough hysterical Valmys and Tims out there baying for blood that the governor will make the easy choice.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 10:36:25 AM
as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check
In addition if your university administration works similar to ours it would have been Spanner with the assitance of Curley and Schultz who would have briefed the Board about these matters. It is not hard to imagine that the briefing would have deflected or minimized the allegations.
It is also probably that the Board came to the conclusion that the President had to go based on the fact they were hearing all this for the first time. So the Board's statement that they knew nothing other than what was reported in the media also means the President didnt tell them anything about what he knew and he ought to have done so.
A sister of one of the victims goes to Penn state. :(
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/1/sister_of_sandusky_victim_talk.html
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 10:36:25 AM
as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check
In addition if your university administration works similar to ours it would have been Spanner with the assitance of Curley and Schultz who would have briefed the Board about these matters. It is not hard to imagine that the briefing would have deflected or minimized the allegations.
It is also probably that the Board came to the conclusion that the President had to go based on the fact they were hearing all this for the first time. So the Board's statement that they knew nothing other than what was reported in the media also means the President didnt tell them anything about what he knew and he ought to have done so.
:yes:
from what we presently know, this board did it's job and then some; here in florida at least our boards are not empowered to fire coaches...only the university presidents can do that
if it works similarly in pennsylvania, the board could have fired spanner and made known to the interim president that joe pa must go but theoretically the board does not have that direct authority
i suspect that this board might have known this but might have wanted to make a political statement without regards to their technical authority
:bleeding:
And now the human interest stories begin.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 10:54:59 AM
It is also probably that the Board came to the conclusion that the President had to go based on the fact they were hearing all this for the first time. So the Board's statement that they knew nothing other than what was reported in the media also means the President didnt tell them anything about what he knew and he ought to have done so.
Two things: one is that I'm guessing the president was told a very sanitized story as well. Does the Board really need to be informed of questionable (but probably not outright obscene) behavior of a retired assistant football coach?
Second, how likely do you think it is that the board knows a lot more? I'm not a lawyer, so I'd be interested what you think of my take on the press conference. "We only know what we heard in the media, and relied on the grand jury report." By claiming to put your all your reliance on the grand jury testimony, that is legally sworn testimony produced by a third party. They obviously have made decisions in a very rushed manner (10 PM press conference, and informing long time employees of terminations by phone). I doubt any other evidence they have is at such a substantiated level. Also, the reasons for termination were very vague (we need a change in leadership due to the challenges the university faces). It seemed designed to avoid any wrongful termination litigation.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 11:06:02 AM
:yes:
from what we presently know, this board did it's job and then some; here in florida at least our boards are not empowered to fire coaches...only the university presidents can do that
if it works similarly in pennsylvania, the board could have fired spanner and made known to the interim president that joe pa must go but theoretically the board does not have that direct authority
i suspect that this board might have known this but might have wanted to make a political statement without regards to their technical authority
Fair enough. I just find it hard to believe nobody board never heard anything about this and never investigated prior to it becoming a major news story. But there is that whole culture of silence going on.
Quote from: Neil on November 10, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
It doesn't matter what the laws are and what the board knew. There will be enough hysterical Valmys and Tims out there baying for blood that the governor will make the easy choice.
It matters a great deal. My question is if it was out enough for media stories to be published about it earlier this year why were no questions posed to the school President then? It just feels like the story started to embarrass the University so they scrambled to cover their asses. I am not even calling for anybody to be prosecuted, but at least take responsibility for the failures in their leadership structure. Granted the big changes will not happen immediately for logistical reasons.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 10, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
It doesn't matter what the laws are and what the board knew. There will be enough hysterical Valmys and Tims out there baying for blood that the governor will make the easy choice.
It matters a great deal. My question is if it was out enough for media stories to be published about it earlier this year why were no questions posed to the school President then? It just feels like the story started to embarrass the University so they scrambled to cover their asses. I am not even calling for anybody to be prosecuted, but at least take responsibility for the failures in their leadership structure. Granted the big changes will not happen immediately for logistical reasons.
if the board had actual knowledge and ignored it i agree with you...i think canuck hit the nail on the head; the people reporting to this board were the very same people covering this up from the public
it makes little sense to believe that magament concealed things from the public but were truthful to a board who owed them no allegiance
as for the newspaper article, it proved brilliant in hindsight
in my experience however there are constantly articles blogs op ed pieces etc speculating about rumors and scandals; boards do not track each them them down because the overwhelming majority are conspiratorial bullshit; it would be disruptive and cost prohibiticve to investigate every rumor that makes it to print about any given institution
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
Two things: one is that I'm guessing the president was told a very sanitized story as well. Does the Board really need to be informed of questionable (but probably not outright obscene) behavior of a retired assistant football coach?
I think so for two reasons:
First, Footfall seems to be a main part of the prestige and reputation of that school. an argument might be made the the President was simply excersing his judgment not to bother the Board with this. But imo a better argument can be made that such a judgment was wrong. That the President should have made more inquiries to ensure the University would likely not be harmed and that this really was a minor issue. If the President had done even the most cursory of investigations he would have uncovered the 2002 story - which leads us right back to the observations PLJ first made.
Second, the alleged Perp was still using University facilities. Again that would call for at least some kind of investigation by the University to satisfy itself that the allegations were without substance. Which leads back to the first point.
QuoteSecond, how likely do you think it is that the board knows a lot more? I'm not a lawyer, so I'd be interested what you think of my take on the press conference. "We only know what we heard in the media, and relied on the grand jury report." By claiming to put your all your reliance on the grand jury testimony, that is legally sworn testimony produced by a third party. They obviously have made decisions in a very rushed manner (10 PM press conference, and informing long time employees of terminations by phone). I doubt any other evidence they have is at such a substantiated level. Also, the reasons for termination were very vague (we need a change in leadership due to the challenges the university faces). It seemed designed to avoid any wrongful termination litigation.
I think it very unlikely the Board knows more. If I was advising the Board I would be giving the same cautions PLJ already stated. But the Board is in the best position to know what it didnt know. They can compare that to what they should have been told. At the very least they could reasonably conclude that there should have been some form of investigation and assuming they were never informed of such an investigation it would be open for them to reasonably conclude that the President had to go becuase he either failed to cause such an investigation to be carried out or it was carried out and the Board never heard about it. In either case there is good reason for the Board to lose its confidence in the President and fire him.
If I am wrong and the Board did know more and didnt do anything itself then that place is in some serious trouble.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
Two things: one is that I'm guessing the president was told a very sanitized story as well. Does the Board really need to be informed of questionable (but probably not outright obscene) behavior of a retired assistant football coach?
Well according to the indictment (granted this was from Schultz I believe) there was a reason he was "retired" following the child molestation investigation in 1998. A second incident in the exact same location? Granted the President may have been kept in the dark the entire time (we will see what happens as more victims and information comes forward as the media swarms over this thing in the coming months and years) but even so I think an outsider is probably needed to lead the clean up effort.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 11:30:30 AM
I think it very unlikely the Board knows more. If I was advising the Board I would be giving the same cautions PLJ already stated. But the Board is in the best position to know what it didnt know. They can compare that to what they should have been told. At the very least they could reasonably conclude that there should have been some form of investigation and assuming they were never informed of such an investigation it would be open for them to reasonably conclude that the President had to go becuase he either failed to cause such an investigation to be carried out or it was carried out and the Board never heard about it. In either case there is good reason for the Board to lose its confidence in the President and fire him.
If I am wrong and the Board did know more and didnt do anything itself then that place is in some serious trouble.
I'm not talking about what the board knew, I'm talking about what the board knows now. At the press conference they denied knowledge beyond what is known by the public. I think a lot depends on the 2002 investigation, for instance. I would assume the boad has more information regarding that than the general public.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 11:36:37 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
Two things: one is that I'm guessing the president was told a very sanitized story as well. Does the Board really need to be informed of questionable (but probably not outright obscene) behavior of a retired assistant football coach?
Well according to the indictment (granted this was from Schultz I believe) there was a reason he was "retired" following the child molestation investigation in 1998. A second incident in the exact same location? Granted the President may have been kept in the dark the entire time (we will see what happens as more victims and information comes forward as the media swarms over this thing in the coming months and years) but even so I think an outsider is probably needed to lead the clean up effort.
That is a fair decision that an outsider is needed. However, you can say that rather than just axing the guy, and also, the Board seems to have decapitated all of the leadership right now. I don't know about the Penn State board, but generally a board is going to be to a large extent retired folks, large donors, and people with other jobs. Not people capable of stepping into the day to day administration of the university, and that is needed today as well as going forward.
By axing him like this, you seriously impair his opportunities to get another job. It isn't a good way to treat a guy if you just want to bring in an outsider.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 11:38:12 AM
I'm not talking about what the board knew, I'm talking about what the board knows now. At the press conference they denied knowledge beyond what is known by the public. I think a lot depends on the 2002 investigation, for instance. I would assume the boad has more information regarding that than the general public.
Why would you assume that?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 11:38:12 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 11:30:30 AM
I think it very unlikely the Board knows more. If I was advising the Board I would be giving the same cautions PLJ already stated. But the Board is in the best position to know what it didnt know. They can compare that to what they should have been told. At the very least they could reasonably conclude that there should have been some form of investigation and assuming they were never informed of such an investigation it would be open for them to reasonably conclude that the President had to go becuase he either failed to cause such an investigation to be carried out or it was carried out and the Board never heard about it. In either case there is good reason for the Board to lose its confidence in the President and fire him.
If I am wrong and the Board did know more and didnt do anything itself then that place is in some serious trouble.
I'm not talking about what the board knew, I'm talking about what the board knows now. At the press conference they denied knowledge beyond what is known by the public. I think a lot depends on the 2002 investigation, for instance. I would assume the boad has more information regarding that than the general public.
not if you accept the premise that management was attempting to conceal or minimize what was happening.
i suspect it is exactly s canuck suggests; the board came to te conclusion that spanner knew more and chose to keep it from them; at 8mm per annum (iirc), i suspect that the board thought this inexcusable
I have to say I am amazed McQueary is remaining on the staff. That just seems like a really bad idea.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 11:44:28 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 11:38:12 AM
I'm not talking about what the board knew, I'm talking about what the board knows now. At the press conference they denied knowledge beyond what is known by the public. I think a lot depends on the 2002 investigation, for instance. I would assume the boad has more information regarding that than the general public.
Why would you assume that?
Because the grand jury testimony alone leaves a lot of questions about who knew what, and when, at Penn State.
It is possible that the GA gave a very watered down account of what he saw to Paterno and others. It is possible that based on this the investigation found little wrongdoing, but just as CYA Sandusky was told not to bring chidren on campus, and this is all that was communicated to the president.
It at least sounds prudent to look into this rather than to just fire everyone in the middle of the night.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 11:51:03 AM
I have to say I am amazed McQueary is remaining on the staff. That just seems like a really bad idea.
i suspect the gc is afraid of the retaliatory discharge suit
"ladies and gentlemen of he jury, my client told the uncomfortable and unvarnished truth to a grand jury of the commonwealth of pennsylvania. A group, much like yourselves, dedicated to finding the truth. What he said was uncomfortable to say, uncomfortable to hear, but a necessary step in the journey of his alma mater's rediscovering its own morality and value sytem. That story brought down two coaching legends, and the management of our beloved Pennsylvania State University who had engaged in a cover up the likes of which this country's not seen since watergate. Nonetheless it had to be done and had the truth not come out how many more victims would there have been? How did Penn State reward my client for his courage before the grand jury? They fired him..."
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 11:56:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 11:44:28 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 11:38:12 AM
I'm not talking about what the board knew, I'm talking about what the board knows now. At the press conference they denied knowledge beyond what is known by the public. I think a lot depends on the 2002 investigation, for instance. I would assume the boad has more information regarding that than the general public.
Why would you assume that?
Because the grand jury testimony alone leaves a lot of questions about who knew what, and when, at Penn State.
It is possible that the GA gave a very watered down account of what he saw to Paterno and others. It is possible that based on this the investigation found little wrongdoing, but just as CYA Sandusky was told not to bring chidren on campus, and this is all that was communicated to the president.
It at least sounds prudent to look into this rather than to just fire everyone in the middle of the night.
If there was an investigation and it found little wrongdoing then the investigation was done incompetantly since all they had to do was talk to the GA to find out the full details. That is reason enough to lose trust in the President who should have taken this matter more seriously if your assumption is correct. Also, if there was an investigation and the GA was interviewed but not believed then why was he kept on staff and given a plum job? That makes no sense.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 11:51:03 AM
I have to say I am amazed McQueary is remaining on the staff. That just seems like a really bad idea.
i suspect the gc is afraid of the retaliatory discharge suit
"ladies and gentlemen of he jury, my client told the uncomfortable and unvarnished truth to a grand jury of the commonwealth of pennsylvania. A group, much like yourselves, dedicated to finding the truth. What he said was uncomfortable to say, uncomfortable to hear, but a necessary step in the journey of his alma mater's rediscovering its own morality and value sytem. That story brought down two coaching legends, and the management of our beloved Pennsylvania State University who had engaged in a cover up the likes of which this country's not seen since watergate. Nonetheless it had to be done and had the truth not come out how many more victims would there have been? How did Penn State reward my client for his courage before the grand jury? They fired him..."
Hey, you should do this for a living.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 12:01:09 PM
i suspect the gc is afraid of the retaliatory discharge suit
I think Valmy was talking about him leaving voluntarily, not getting shitcanned. He's probably the most unpopular person on campus right now.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 09:51:40 AM
Honestly guys - could you not imagine this very same thing happen at any of a number of "big time" football schools? The culture of winning>>>>>everything else is pretty widespread.
But this has nothing to do with winning trumping everything else. By the time McQueary caught Sandusky fucking a kid, Sandusky had no longer been a coach there for a few years. It's not like if someone at LSU caught Les Myles doing the same thing, and the school covered it up so that they could keep Myles there to win them football games--Penn State in 2002 had nothing to gain by not having McQueary go to the police and tell them what he saw; it wouldn't have cost them a single victory.
Quote from: jimmy olsenA sister of one of the victims goes to Penn state. :(:
Why does it make you sad that she chose to go to Penn State in spite of her brother being molested by Sandusky? What business of it is yours about where she choses to go to college?
Incidentally, another story on that site quotes an attorney for some of the victims' families criticizing the board for the way Paterno was fired.
Quote from: alfred russelI would assume the boad has more information regarding that than the general public.
I wouldn't make that assumption. I think that likely, at most the board was told in 2002 that there were some allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor against Sandusky, without any details. And they probably didn't ask for any, because I think that a board member, if being told 3rd or 4th hand that a
former coach there was subject to such allegations would be thinking, "Well, he doesn't work here anymore, so why are we even being told about this?".
You are talking about the 2002 incident, right? Because if you're talking about the earlier investigation, then that's different--I would also assume that the board knew more about it than the general public.
Quote from: ValmyI have to say I am amazed McQueary is remaining on the staff. That just seems like a really bad idea.
To me, he's the #2 villain in this story, after Sandusky himself. I don't see how you can justify firing Paterno, who as far as we know only had a second-hand report of the abuse and not fire the guy who actually witnessed it.
I can come up with a few scenarios as to why it would be justified for Paterno to simply pass what McQueary told him on to his superiors, but I can't come up with any justification for McQueary himself not going to the police.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 12:07:35 PM
I can come up with a few scenarios as to why it would be justified for Paterno to simply pass what McQueary told him on to his superiors, but I can't come up with any justification for McQueary himself not going to the police.
Hey, the
police can't give him a job ... ;)
But yeah, so far, everyone involved comes out this story stinking.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 12:15:33 PM
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 12:07:35 PM
I can come up with a few scenarios as to why it would be justified for Paterno to simply pass what McQueary told him on to his superiors, but I can't come up with any justification for McQueary himself not going to the police.
Hey, the police can't give him a job ... ;)
That could explain it, but not justify if.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 12:16:53 PM
That could explain it, but not justify if.
Well, obviously, that's my point. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 12:06:12 PM
I think Valmy was talking about him leaving voluntarily, not getting shitcanned. He's probably the most unpopular person on campus right now.
Yep. It will be ugly if he is there on the sideline on Saturday.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 12:07:35 PM
To me, he's the #2 villain in this story, after Sandusky himself. I don't see how you can justify firing Paterno, who as far as we know only had a second-hand report of the abuse and not fire the guy who actually witnessed it.
I can come up with a few scenarios as to why it would be justified for Paterno to simply pass what McQueary told him on to his superiors, but I can't come up with any justification for McQueary himself not going to the police.
Well Paterno is supposed to be in charge so he should be held to a higher standard. But basically yes. He should have been let go. But I am amazed he has not stepped down and snuck out of town on his own accord.
Even under the most generous review of PA's statutes, I think both McQueary and JoePa are considered mandatory reporters of child abuse. I think that ultimately that's the issue that will prove decisive: their failure to report to the state child protective services independently of PSU's internal procedures. All the rest is the typical high-profile college football smokescreen.
Caveat: I fucking hate PSU. Always have, always will. So consider that my disclosure of a conflict of interest.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 12:02:44 PM
If there was an investigation and it found little wrongdoing then the investigation was done incompetantly since all they had to do was talk to the GA to find out the full details. That is reason enough to lose trust in the President who should have taken this matter more seriously if your assumption is correct. Also, if there was an investigation and the GA was interviewed but not believed then why was he kept on staff and given a plum job? That makes no sense.
The president is running a university with 10s of thousands of people. If someone comes to him and says, "we got a report from a GA that a former assistant coach was seen in the shower with one of the 10 year old members of his charity after they were running laps. We looked into and didn't think there was anything wrong, but told him not to bring kids on campus just in case.", what do you expect him to do? Follow the career path of the GA and start asking questions if he ever gets a full time job?
I'm not saying that is what happened, but it is possible that if there was a cover up it was also covered up from the president.
It strikes me that what happened in 2002 is a direct result of how 1998/99 was handled. Sandusky was quietly fired to stop any scandal, but enough ickiness all around that everybody was scared stiff of it being revealed in the future. I'd wager pretty good odds that Sandusky said that he didn't do it or that the situation was all a misunderstanding, and that carried enough weight to keep anything further from happening. When he gets blatantly caught in 2002 now the administration is screwed and can't weasel out of it what with their behavior in 98/99, other than hoping it all quietly goes away. McQueary is bought off with a good job, until more evidence piles up....
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 12:02:44 PM
If there was an investigation and it found little wrongdoing then the investigation was done incompetantly since all they had to do was talk to the GA to find out the full details. That is reason enough to lose trust in the President who should have taken this matter more seriously if your assumption is correct. Also, if there was an investigation and the GA was interviewed but not believed then why was he kept on staff and given a plum job? That makes no sense.
The president is running a university with 10s of thousands of people. If someone comes to him and says, "we got a report from a GA that a former assistant coach was seen in the shower with one of the 10 year old members of his charity after they were running laps. We looked into and didn't think there was anything wrong, but told him not to bring kids on campus just in case.", what do you expect him to do? Follow the career path of the GA and start asking questions if he ever gets a full time job?
I'm not saying that is what happened, but it is possible that if there was a cover up it was also covered up from the president.
Wow, that is a fact pattern that gives the Board actual knowledge something very wrong had occurred. This scenario would mean that both the Board and the President were incompetant or wilfully blind. Who in their right mind would come to the conclusion that a Man showering with a 10 year old boy was ok and should not be reported.
At the very least in your hypothetical you would have to give some rational explanation for reaching such a conclusion.
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2011, 12:37:47 PM
It strikes me that what happened in 2002 is a direct result of how 1998/99 was handled. Sandusky was quietly fired to stop any scandal, but enough ickiness all around that everybody was scared stiff of it being revealed in the future. I'd wager pretty good odds that Sandusky said that he didn't do it or that the situation was all a misunderstanding, and that carried enough weight to keep anything further from happening. When he gets blatantly caught in 2002 now the administration is screwed and can't weasel out of it what with their behavior in 98/99, other than hoping it all quietly goes away. McQueary is bought off with a good job, until more evidence piles up....
Yeah, that is a good observation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 12:50:41 PM
Wow, that is a fact pattern that gives the Board actual knowledge something very wrong had occurred. This scenario would mean that both the Board and the President were incompetant or wilfully blind. Who in their right mind would come to the conclusion that a Man showering with a 10 year old boy was ok and should not be reported.
At the very least in your hypothetical you would have to give some rational explanation for reaching such a conclusion.
??? We are talking about locker room showers in athletic facilities. I don't know the layout in Penn State, but I've certainly taken showers in athletic settings where the showers were common and multiple people have showered at the same time. I assume he was bringing the children onto campus at least under the pretense of some athletic activity, and certainly afterwards it is normal to shower.
Quote from: Scipio on November 10, 2011, 12:34:50 PM
Even under the most generous review of PA's statutes, I think both McQueary and JoePa are considered mandatory reporters of child abuse.
Apparently, in 2002, Pennsylvania's child abuse reporting statute was much less strict than the current version. So, your analysis may not be accurate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 12:01:09 PM
i suspect the gc is afraid of the retaliatory discharge suit
I think Valmy was talking about him leaving voluntarily, not getting shitcanned. He's probably the most unpopular person on campus right now.
ahhh... probably so
I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.
One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 01:22:05 PM
I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.
One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.
There was one other witness who observed Sandusky molesting a child(I think performing oral sex on the child) . The witness was a janitor, who reported it to his supervisor. The janitor apparently has dementia and is unfit to testify.n This is all detailed in the grand jury report.
Quote from: stjaba on November 10, 2011, 01:25:20 PM
There was one other witness who observed Sandusky molesting a child(I think performing oral sex on the child) . The witness was a janitor, who reported it to his supervisor. The janitor apparently has dementia and is unfit to testify.n This is all detailed in the grand jury report.
So basically this guy was just bringing kids over to his former place of work to rape them in public places, with various people spotting him from time to time. There was also the story of him buying drugs for a kid letting him use them while driving around town. This guy must have wanted to get caught, but no one was willing to catch him.
Quote from: stjaba on November 10, 2011, 01:25:20 PM
There was one other witness who observed Sandusky molesting a child(I think performing oral sex on the child) . The witness was a janitor, who reported it to his supervisor. The janitor apparently has dementia and is unfit to testify.n This is all detailed in the grand jury report.
I won't be reading that, thank you. I'll take on faith that you all are telling the pertinant and truthful points. In which case, I reiterate: I hope that we hear of McQueary's suicide soon.
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 01:22:05 PM
I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.
One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.
Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked? I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation. Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PMAre you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked? I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation. Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.
What? A ten year old boy being raped doesn't need to be screaming for someone to act.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 01:39:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PMAre you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked? I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation. Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.
What? A ten year old boy being raped doesn't need to be screaming for someone to act.
Yeah because even if the kid wanted it - that's not really his decision to make.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 01:39:01 PM
What? A ten year old boy being raped doesn't need to be screaming for someone to act.
That's easy to say in the abstract. You see two men having anal sex in the shower. Are you going to ask them for proof of age?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:42:21 PM
That's easy to say in the abstract. You see two men having anal sex in the shower. Are you going to ask them for proof of age?
My parents live near a primary school, I was staying up there last week. I'm confident in my ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a 'man' having anal sex in the shower.
McQueary's evidence explicitly describes the kid as appearing to be about 10. He didn't see two men, he didn't even see a man and an adolescent where it could be difficult to accurately judge the age, he saw a child being raped.
Quote from: Scipio on November 10, 2011, 12:34:50 PM
Caveat: I fucking hate PSU. Always have, always will. So consider that my disclosure of a conflict of interest.
Any particular reason? Just the Michigan-PSU rivalry thing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM
Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked? I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation. Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.
:mellow:
A ten-year-old child doesn't have to scream for help. The fact that a 40+ year old is fucking him in the ass is enough of a cry for help, imo. And I'm not saying that I necessarily blame McQueary for not stepping immediately in to stop things (though, like Crazy Canuck, I can't imagine NOT doing so). But at the very least, he should have gone to the authorities - the real ones - and kept going until someone at least looked into the situation. He didn't, and therefore, is culpable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:42:21 PM
That's easy to say in the abstract. You see two men having anal sex in the shower. Are you going to ask them for proof of age?
There is a huge difference between a 10-year-old boy and a grown man, I assure you. Even between a small man and a big 10-year-old.
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 01:22:05 PM
I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.
One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.
:bleeding: I don't understand this desire by posters to show their redass by wishing death on others. Classy stuff. Not.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jerry-sandusky-donors-2011-11
Quote
Sportswriter Mark Madden went on WEEI in Boston and reported a rumor that alleged child molester Jerry Sandusky would pimp out boys to rich donors.
"I hear a rumor that there will be a shocking development from the Second Miles Foundation ... That Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors."
Madden claims it's being investigated by "two prominent columnists."
We'd say this is ridiculous, and that you should take it with a grain of salt. But Madden actually wrote about Sandusky for the Beaver County Times six months ago — long before the scandal blindsided everyone else this week.
Madden also claimed Sandusky was forced out of Penn State in 1999.
"I think you'll find out that Jerry Sandusky was told he had to retire in exchange for a cover up."
Sandusky retired at 55 in 1999, a year after Pennsylvania police investigated (but did not prosecute) him for allegedly molesting a boy.
Again, label this under "RUMOR." But Madden has been out in front of this story before, so stay tuned.
A pedophile ring?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 01:47:12 PM
I'm confident in my ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a 'man' having anal sex in the shower.
How confident are you in your ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a kid at the age of consent?
And does your certainty decrease if the victim were close to, but not yet at, the age of consent? Are you sure you would intervene if the vic looked, say, 14? If you're not sure, then how confident are you in your ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a kid of whatever age your certainty starts to weaken?
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM
Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked? I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation. Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.
:mellow:
A ten-year-old child doesn't have to scream for help. The fact that a 40+ year old is fucking him in the ass is enough of a cry for help, imo. And I'm not saying that I necessarily blame McQueary for not stepping immediately in to stop things (though, like Crazy Canuck, I can't imagine NOT doing so). But at the very least, he should have gone to the authorities - the real ones - and kept going until someone at least looked into the situation. He didn't, and therefore, is culpable.
I'd like to think that a normal person would have 1 of 3 natural responses upon seeing something like that:
1) step up and stop the abuse right then (beating Sandusky unconscious or worse if necessary) and then haul his ass to the cops;
2) Getting to the nearest phone and calling the cops right away; or
3) Going catatonic.
Now, I said that I'd like to think that people would have one of those 3 responses. I'm cynical enough that I know that a lot of people would just walk away and pretend that they didn't see anything. I don't condone that, of couse, but I can at least understand it. I can't understand telling a 3rd party who isn't the police and thinking that was enough.
Now if you're the 3rd party and didn't actually witness the incident yourself, I can understand not going to the police--though I would try to get the actual witness to call the cops.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 12:56:56 PM
??? We are talking about locker room showers in athletic facilities. I don't know the layout in Penn State, but I've certainly taken showers in athletic settings where the showers were common and multiple people have showered at the same time. I assume he was bringing the children onto campus at least under the pretense of some athletic activity, and certainly afterwards it is normal to shower.
I have played a lot of sports. I have played at the University level. Granted I have never showered in a shower room of a Division I football team. But I can tell you that I have never seen a grown man showering alone with a 10 year old boy in a University practice facility.
That strikes me as very odd indeed.
Now add to that the fact that this particular grown man was asked to leave the program around the time an earlier allegation was made and it becomes very odd that one would think such an activity was ok after the most basic of investigations. Like I said this is either complete incompetence or something more sinister. Either way the Board would have good reason to have lost trust in the President given your hyothetical.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 01:39:01 PM
What? A ten year old boy being raped doesn't need to be screaming for someone to act.
That's easy to say in the abstract. You see two men having anal sex in the shower. Are you going to ask them for proof of age?
If you cant tell the difference between an adult and a 10 year old you are a moron.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 02:05:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 01:47:12 PM
I'm confident in my ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a 'man' having anal sex in the shower.
How confident are you in your ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a kid at the age of consent?
What does that have to do with this fact pattern? You cant tell the difference between a 10 year old and a teenager. WTF?
And besides there is no indication this guy didnt know he was 10. He knew it was a child. He didnt act.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 02:05:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 01:47:12 PM
I'm confident in my ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a 'man' having anal sex in the shower.
How confident are you in your ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a kid at the age of consent?
What does that have to do with this fact pattern? You cant tell the difference between a 10 year old and a teenager. WTF?
And besides there is no indication this guy didnt know he was 10. He knew it was a child. He didnt act.
indeed he testified to the grand jury that the boy appeared to be about ten years old
I am not really sure I get the blasting of McQueary. Should he have done more? Probably, but we don't really know what exactly happened.
We do know that he did SOMETHING, which is more than can be said for pretty much anyone else, and certainly the easiest thing for him to do would be to do nothing.
Wishing he would die? Seriously? Saying he is only behind Sandusky in culpability? Crazy talk.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 01:39:01 PM
What? A ten year old boy being raped doesn't need to be screaming for someone to act.
That's easy to say in the abstract. You see two men having anal sex in the shower. Are you going to ask them for proof of age?
If you cant tell the difference between an adult and a 10 year old you are a moron.
The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16. If you see 2 people having sex, 1 of whom you personally know is an adult, and the other 1 is someone you don't know who is 14 of 15, you might reasonably for think that the younger person is 16 and therefore legal. But if they're 10? No.
Besides, the reports agree that McQueary was emotionally distraught when he told Paterno what he'd seen. If he had thought that Sandusky was having consential gay sex with someone of legal age, he might have been squicked out and/or disgusted, but I don't think it's logical that he would have been distraught. McQueary knew that it was an underage kid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:14:23 PM
I have played a lot of sports. I have played at the University level. Granted I have never showered in a shower room of a Division I football team. But I can tell you that I have never seen a grown man showering alone with a 10 year old boy in a University practice facility.
That strikes me as very odd indeed.
Now add to that that fact that this particular grown man was asked to leave the program around the time an earlier allegation was made and it becomes very odd that one would think such an activity was ok after the most basic of investigations. Like I said this is either complete incompetence or something more sinister. Either way the Board would have good reason to have lost trust in the President given your hyothetical.
But you are making an assumption regarding how he left the program. It is possible that the earlier investigation was unknown to people in the administration (including Paterno). I'm not saying that is likely, but if I was on the Board I would want an answer into that before I made a decision to fire anyone.
As for whether showering with a 10 year old is normal, I would doubt you would see many 10 year olds showering with adults in university practice facilities but there probably aren't many 10 year olds showering there period. But an athletic associated youth charity with a connection to the football team was allowed on campus, so this wouldn't have been so unusual at Penn State. I recall as a kid I took lots of showers with adults, often at a beach house we stayed at which was quite small and had only 1 or 2 showers for 15 or so people there. The adults were related, but I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that this was flat out wrong if some weren't. A red flag certainly, but if it was investigated and no other problems came to light, I wouldn't be especially concerned.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
I am not really sure I get the blasting of McQueary. Should he have done more? Probably, but we don't really know what exactly happened.
We do know that he did SOMETHING, which is more than can be said for pretty much anyone else, and certainly the easiest thing for him to do would be to do nothing.
Wishing he would die? Seriously? Saying he is only behind Sandusky in culpability? Crazy talk.
He did the same thing Paterno did; he told his boss. The difference is that if either had gone to the police, McQueary would have been an eyewitness, while anything that Paterno told the police would have been hearsay.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
I am not really sure I get the blasting of McQueary. Should he have done more? Probably, but we don't really know what exactly happened.
We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view. He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 02:25:58 PM
The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16. If you see 2 people having sex, 1 of whom you personally know is an adult, and the other 1 is someone you don't know who is 14 of 15, you might reasonably for think that the younger person is 16 and therefore legal. But if they're 10? No.
Besides, the reports agree that McQueary was emotionally distraught when he told Paterno what he'd seen. If he had thought that Sandusky was having consential gay sex with someone of legal age, he might have been squicked out and/or disgusted, but I don't think it's logical that he would have been distraught. McQueary knew that it was an underage kid.
Agreed. Add to that the fact that even if there was some ambiguity to the age there was a history here and the kid (even if barely legal) was under the control of that adult. There is simply no excuse for thinking this was in any way legitimate.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 02:28:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
I am not really sure I get the blasting of McQueary. Should he have done more? Probably, but we don't really know what exactly happened.
We do know that he did SOMETHING, which is more than can be said for pretty much anyone else, and certainly the easiest thing for him to do would be to do nothing.
Wishing he would die? Seriously? Saying he is only behind Sandusky in culpability? Crazy talk.
He did the same thing Paterno did; he told his boss. The difference is that if either had gone to the police, McQueary would have been an eyewitness, while anything that Paterno told the police would have been hearsay.
Very different between him and Paterno - he saw it, Paterno just heard from someone that something was going on.
And there is a huge difference in standing between some 20 year old grad assistant and Joe Fucking Paterno, and in maturity and authority as well. You cannot hold them to the same standard.
I don't think it was ok that McQueary reported what he saw to an authority and then let it rest there, but at the same time I don't think he deserves to be blasted and held to this kind of account either.
A GA is nobody. He has zero authority, is not any kind of manager or leader. He has no power to investigate anything, or to oversee anything. He should have gone to the police, certainly. But assuming that he did not as some sort of quid pro quo for his silence is a pretty fucking huge assumption.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 02:28:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
I am not really sure I get the blasting of McQueary. Should he have done more? Probably, but we don't really know what exactly happened.
We do know that he did SOMETHING, which is more than can be said for pretty much anyone else, and certainly the easiest thing for him to do would be to do nothing.
Wishing he would die? Seriously? Saying he is only behind Sandusky in culpability? Crazy talk.
He did the same thing Paterno did; he told his boss. The difference is that if either had gone to the police, McQueary would have been an eyewitness, while anything that Paterno told the police would have been hearsay.
Very different between him and Paterno - he saw it, Paterno just heard from someone that something was going on.
And there is a huge difference in standing between some 20 year old grad assistant and Joe Fucking Paterno, and in maturity and authority as well. You cannot hold them to the same standard.
I don't think it was ok that McQueary reported what he saw to an authority and then let it rest there, but at the same time I don't think he deserves to be blasted and held to this kind of account either.
A GA is nobody. He has zero authority, is not any kind of manager or leader. He has no power to investigate anything, or to oversee anything. He should have gone to the police, certainly. But assuming that he did not as some sort of quid pro quo for his silence is a pretty fucking huge assumption.
He was 28 year old man. I'm guessing becoming a GA at Penn State is a highly sought after position. I'd hold him to a higher standard than a 75 year old man with second hand information, no matter how many college football games the old guy won.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:39:44 PM
A GA is nobody. He has zero authority, is not any kind of manager or leader. He has no power to investigate anything, or to oversee anything. He should have gone to the police, certainly. But assuming that he did not as some sort of quid pro quo for his silence is a pretty fucking huge assumption.
One would hope that anyone can be expected to stop the rape of a child or at the very least report what they saw to the police whether or not they are a "nobody". He talked to his father instead. One would hope that after recieving that sober second thought the decision would be made to go to the police with what is clearly a crime. But he didnt. And then nothing was done.
One does not need to make many "pretty fucking huge assumptions" to think of a number of reasonable scenarios in which this was hushed up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
One would hope that anyone can be expected to stop the rape of a child or at the very least report what they saw to the police whether or not they are a "nobody". He talked to his father instead. One would hope that after recieving that sober second thought the decision would be made to go to the police with what is clearly a crime. But he didnt. And then nothing was done.
One does not need to make many "pretty fucking huge assumptions" to think of a number of reasonable scenarios in which this was hushed up.
Really, there are only two possibilities for his continued silence - either he was afraid for himself, or he saw an opportunity for himself. Neither is admirable ...
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:39:44 PM
But assuming that he did not as some sort of quid pro quo for his silence is a pretty fucking huge assumption.
I just want to point out the assistant who turned in Dave Bliss at Baylor has not been able to find a Division I job since.
While this guy, who remained silent, got promoted.
Now maybe the Baylor guy was just a really bad coach and McQueary is a very gifted coach but it is interesting.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2011, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 02:28:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
I am not really sure I get the blasting of McQueary. Should he have done more? Probably, but we don't really know what exactly happened.
We do know that he did SOMETHING, which is more than can be said for pretty much anyone else, and certainly the easiest thing for him to do would be to do nothing.
Wishing he would die? Seriously? Saying he is only behind Sandusky in culpability? Crazy talk.
He did the same thing Paterno did; he told his boss. The difference is that if either had gone to the police, McQueary would have been an eyewitness, while anything that Paterno told the police would have been hearsay.
Very different between him and Paterno - he saw it, Paterno just heard from someone that something was going on.
And there is a huge difference in standing between some 20 year old grad assistant and Joe Fucking Paterno, and in maturity and authority as well. You cannot hold them to the same standard.
I don't think it was ok that McQueary reported what he saw to an authority and then let it rest there, but at the same time I don't think he deserves to be blasted and held to this kind of account either.
A GA is nobody. He has zero authority, is not any kind of manager or leader. He has no power to investigate anything, or to oversee anything. He should have gone to the police, certainly. But assuming that he did not as some sort of quid pro quo for his silence is a pretty fucking huge assumption.
He was 28 year old man. I'm guessing becoming a GA at Penn State is a highly sought after position. I'd hold him to a higher standard than a 75 year old man with second hand information, no matter how many college football games the old guy won.
Bingo.
And I don't assume that McQueary refrained from going to the police as a quid pro quo for a job, either. I criticize him for it because he was an eyewitness to an extremely serious felony, and he didn't stop it or at least go to the police. I'm not working in a managerial or supervisory postion right now, and I have no authority whatsoever at work, but if I saw someone at work raping a 10 year old, I'd either step in to stop the assault while yelling for someone to call 911, or at the very least I'd call 911. I wouldn't simply report it to a supervisor.
I do agree that wishing death on him is over the top. His is a sin of omission, not commission. You'll deal with people worse than him every day.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2011, 01:54:22 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 10, 2011, 12:34:50 PM
Caveat: I fucking hate PSU. Always have, always will. So consider that my disclosure of a conflict of interest.
Any particular reason? Just the Michigan-PSU rivalry thing?
They have no business being in the Big Ten. The JoePa idolatry. The JoePa Idolatry. And them having no business being in the Big Ten.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:34:24 PM
We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view. He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did.
Got a link to his testimony? You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view." All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened. They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:34:24 PM
We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view. He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did.
Got a link to his testimony? You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view." All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened. They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.
Would a reason why be included in what happened? :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 02:48:13 PM
Really, there are only two possibilities for his continued silence - either he was afraid for himself, or he saw an opportunity for himself. Neither is admirable ...
Agreed
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:34:24 PM
We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view. He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did.
Got a link to his testimony? You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view." All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened. They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.
This is a Grumbler post at its very worst. We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did. From those facts reasonable people can make judgments. The key words there are "reasonable people".
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:07:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 02:48:13 PM
Really, there are only two possibilities for his continued silence - either he was afraid for himself, or he saw an opportunity for himself. Neither is admirable ...
Agreed
There is another reason - he thought he had done what needed to be done, and those with the authority to act were acting.
Again, he should have gone to the police once it was clear that Penn State officials had NOT gone to the police. But at the same time, its not like he went along with a cover up (that we know of), he probably just thought that it was being handled. When someone did come and ask him to testify, he did so willingly, so far as a I know.
Here is a timeline of what went on with McQuery:
QuoteMarch 1, 2002: Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant and now the receivers coach and recruiting coordinator, saw a naked boy (Victim 2) with his hands against the wall in the shower area of the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus as Sandusky subjected him to anal sex, according to the grand jury report. McQueary told the grand jury that Sandusky and the boy both noticed him. McQueary went to his office and called his father, who told him to leave the building and come to his home.
— The next morning (Saturday), McQueary called Paterno and went to Paterno's house and reported to the coach what he had witnessed.
— The next day (Sunday), Paterno called athletic director Tim Curley to his home and reported that McQueary told him that he had seen Sandusky in the showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.
— About a week and a half later, McQueary was called to a meeting with Curley and vice president of finance and business, Gary Schultz. He reported what he had seen and was told they would look into it. Paterno was not at that meeting.
— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile. Curley advised school president Graham Spanier of the information he'd received and the steps taken as a result. Spanier testified of his approval of the approach taken by Curley. The incident was not reported to the University Police or any other police agency.
Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-11/penn-state-scandal/story/penn-state-timeline-jerry-sandusky-joe-paterno-mike-mcqueary#ixzz1dKr1DRAf
The last bullet is the most damning - Curley telling him what the result was should have had McQuery in a perfect world saying "Hey, that is not good enough, someone needs to call the police".
But I don't find him NOT doing that anything worthy of comparing him to Sandusky for, or even particularly terrible
compared to almost everyone else involved. Lots of people did not go to the police who clearly should have - calling the one guy who actually did SOMETHING the villain is bizarre, to me.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 02:39:44 PM
Very different between him and Paterno - he saw it, Paterno just heard from someone that something was going on.
And there is a huge difference in standing between some 20 year old grad assistant and Joe Fucking Paterno, and in maturity and authority as well. You cannot hold them to the same standard.
I don't think it was ok that McQueary reported what he saw to an authority and then let it rest there, but at the same time I don't think he deserves to be blasted and held to this kind of account either.
We also maybe need to consider what the staff is told about sex abuse charges. A university is going to have different standards than a lower-level school, but I know that I am required by law to notify a certain school authority (or another, if the first isn't available) of any suspicions I have of child abuse, whether I then go to the police or not. It is possible that McQueary wasn't sure whether or not to contact the police first, because of mandatory reporting requirements, and he went to JoPa to find out what he was supposed to do. I cannot believe that Joe told him to go to the police and he refused.
It is also a lot harder for a 20-something GA to ask anyone "why haven't the police talked to me?" than it is for JoPa. McQueary doesn't get a free pass on this, but clearly he deserves a more sympathetic eye from anyone who isn't already so narrow-minded and classless they are actually wishing death upon him.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2011, 03:04:46 PM
Would a reason why be included in what happened? :huh:
:huh: Not sure what question this is asking. If we have access to his testimony, then we can see how he answered questions like "why didn't you follow up when time passed and no police interviewed you" or "why didn't you go to police."
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:34:24 PM
We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view. He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did.
Got a link to his testimony? You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view." All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened. They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.
This is a Grumbler post at its very worst. We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did. From those facts reasonable people can make judgments. The key words there are "reasonable people".
We do not at all, actually.
McQueary said that both the boy and Sandusky noticed that he saw them. Did they stop? Did they flee? Seems unlikely that Sandusky continued banging the kid after giving McQuery a "Hey, hows it going Mike!?", right?
So we don't really know.
Now, ideally McQueary should have done something, because even if they stopped immediately and fled, he should not have left the child in Sandusky's custody, but I can easily understand not reacting quickly and rationally at that moment, it's not like he has rehearsed how to react to that rather bizarre circumstance. In this I could easily see myself, for example, not reacting in the manner I would like to believe I would react.
Yeah, I agree that McQueary doesn't sound nearly as bad an actor as the rest of the people involved. It does raise a question though. Did the incident actually get reported to The Second Mile? If so, why didn't they act on it?
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 03:16:29 PM
But I don't find him NOT doing that anything worthy of comparing him to Sandusky for, or even particularly terrible compared to almost everyone else involved. Lots of people did not go to the police who clearly should have - calling the one guy who actually did SOMETHING the villain is bizarre, to me.
First, no one has suggested anyone is comparable to what Sandusky did.
Second, the fact that lots (5 that we know) of people, all known to eachother, did not go to the police is one of the facts that leads one to think there might have been a consipiracy of silence.
Calling this guy a villain for something he did not do - step in and stop the rape or at the very least inform the police rather than call his father is not bizarre at all.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 03:22:15 PM
We do not at all, actually.
McQueary said that both the boy and Sandusky noticed that he saw them. Did they stop? Did they flee? Seems unlikely that Sandusky continued banging the kid after giving McQuery a "Hey, hows it going Mike!?", right?
So we don't really know.
So you are assuming something more happened in order to argue that the witness did not tell the Grand Jury everything about what he did or saw?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:09:52 PM
This is a Grumbler post at its very worst. We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did. From those facts reasonable people can make judgments. The key words there are "reasonable people".
This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst. When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows
exactly what McQueary saw and
exactly what he says he did. We know nothing of the sort. We have summaries, not transcripts. Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:34:24 PM
We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view. He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did.
Got a link to his testimony? You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view." All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened. They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.
This is a Grumbler post at its very worst. We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did. From those facts reasonable people can make judgments. The key words there are "reasonable people".
We do not at all, actually.
McQueary said that both the boy and Sandusky noticed that he saw them. Did they stop? Did they flee? Seems unlikely that Sandusky continued banging the kid after giving McQuery a "Hey, hows it going Mike!?", right?
So we don't really know.
Now, ideally McQueary should have done something, because even if they stopped immediately and fled, he should not have left the child in Sandusky's custody, but I can easily understand not reacting quickly and rationally at that moment, it's not like he has rehearsed how to react to that rather bizarre circumstance. In this I could easily see myself, for example, not reacting in the manner I would like to believe I would react.
It isn't his reaction on the spur of the moment that people find puzzling - it is his continued
non-action when he's told that, basically, all that will happen is that the fellow won't be allowed to use the shower anymore.
The man was an
eyewitness to a child's rape. Now, by all accounts, he gets to see the rapist wandering about campus doing his "charitable" work with boys, unhindered - the only restriction being he's not allowed to use the shower.
Granted, those above him are worse (in some ways taking the guy's shower privileges away is the worst of all worlds for them - it indicates they believed McQ, but chose to do this minimal thing), but he's not looking so good either.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 02:34:24 PM
We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view. He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did.
Got a link to his testimony? You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view." All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened. They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.
technically correct; what he have is the grand jury's report of what he testified to and their assesment of his credibility based upon their view of his testimony. what is both interesting and unusual is that the grand jury's assesment of the respective credibility of mcreary verses curley/schultz forms the basis of the perjury charges
ive never heard of perjury charges being prosecuted based upon two people testifying differently to a nine year old conversation absent objective evidence corroborating one version verses another
these are hard cases to prosecute because failure of memory is enough to create reasonable doubt
the state must prove that curly and schultz knowingly gave false testimony; it would not be enough to merely show that their testimony materially differed than that of the more credible witness
I still think Paterno should be charged. The only reason the grand jury weaseled out of charging him is that they considered him an employee of Penn State, and not to have sufficient authority to report it to protective services. That's at the top of page 12 of the report.
That's a whitewash, any way you slice it. If Curley and Schultz deserve to be indicted, so does Paterno.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:28:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 03:22:15 PM
We do not at all, actually.
McQueary said that both the boy and Sandusky noticed that he saw them. Did they stop? Did they flee? Seems unlikely that Sandusky continued banging the kid after giving McQuery a "Hey, hows it going Mike!?", right?
So we don't really know.
So you are assuming something more happened in order to argue that the witness did not tell the Grand Jury everything about what he did or saw?
I am assuming I don't know.
Which I think means I am not assuming anything at all.
Quote from: Scipio on November 10, 2011, 03:35:38 PM
I still think Paterno should be charged. The only reason the grand jury weaseled out of charging him is that they considered him an employee of Penn State, and not to have sufficient authority to report it to protective services. That's at the top of page 12 of the report.
That's a whitewash, any way you slice it. If Curley and Schultz deserve to be indicted, so does Paterno.
at least as it relates to the perjury i completely agree
paternos version of the mcreary coversation is the same as curley's but curley is charged with perjuring this testimony and joe pa gets a bone from the jury saying something to the effect of "but his memory of the details was hazy"
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:09:52 PM
This is a Grumbler post at its very worst. We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did. From those facts reasonable people can make judgments. The key words there are "reasonable people".
This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst. When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did. We know nothing of the sort. We have summaries, not transcripts. Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.
This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy. we know what he
says he saw and what he
says he did because well that is what he
said to the Grand Jury. Of course you can go off into some fantasy land that maybe the transmission of what he said is somehow inaccurate. Do we know whether what he says he saw and what he says he did are true and accurate. No. But what we can do is judge the man based on what he says he did and what he says he say. That is called an admission. And based on his known admissions reasonable people can make judgments about what he did and did not do.
Reasonable people Grumbler...
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:09:52 PM
This is a Grumbler post at its very worst. We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did. From those facts reasonable people can make judgments. The key words there are "reasonable people".
This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst. When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did. We know nothing of the sort. We have summaries, not transcripts. Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.
This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy. we know what he says he saw and what he says he did because well that is what he said to the Grand Jury. Of course you can go off into some fantasy land that maybe the transmission of what he said is somehow inaccurate. Do we know whether what he says he saw and what he says he did are true and accurate. No. But what we can do is judge the man based on what he says he did and what he says he say. That is called an admission. And based on his known admissions reasonable people can make judgments about what he did and did not do.
Reasonable people Grumbler...
i think grumbler's point is one of semantics but technically accurate; none of us have seen the transcript of mcreary's testimony; what we have seen is the grand jury report summarizing his testimony
i.e., we dont know what mcreary testified to; we know what the grand jury tells us he testified to
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:09:52 PM
This is a Grumbler post at its very worst. We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did. From those facts reasonable people can make judgments. The key words there are "reasonable people".
This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst. When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did. We know nothing of the sort. We have summaries, not transcripts. Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.
This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy. we know what he says he saw and what he says he did because well that is what he said to the Grand Jury. Of course you can go off into some fantasy land that maybe the transmission of what he said is somehow inaccurate. Do we know whether what he says he saw and what he says he did are true and accurate. No. But what we can do is judge the man based on what he says he did and what he says he say. That is called an admission. And based on his known admissions reasonable people can make judgments about what he did and did not do.
Reasonable people Grumbler...
i think grumbler's point is one of semantics but technically accurate; none of us have seen the transcript of mcreary's testimony; what we have seen is the grand jury report summarizing his testimony
Of course Grumbler is going on semantics. Which is why I said all he is really relying on is that the transmission of what was said is somehow inaccurate. Not only a semantic argument but a very long bow indeed.
i am skeptical on a case guranteed to garner this kind of media attention that either the grand jury or the prosecutor woud have played fast and loose with the facts given that the transcripts of the testimony will eventually come out
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:09:52 PM
This is a Grumbler post at its very worst. We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did. From those facts reasonable people can make judgments. The key words there are "reasonable people".
This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst. When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did. We know nothing of the sort. We have summaries, not transcripts. Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.
This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy. we know what he says he saw and what he says he did because well that is what he said to the Grand Jury. Of course you can go off into some fantasy land that maybe the transmission of what he said is somehow inaccurate. Do we know whether what he says he saw and what he says he did are true and accurate. No. But what we can do is judge the man based on what he says he did and what he says he say. That is called an admission. And based on his known admissions reasonable people can make judgments about what he did and did not do.
Reasonable people Grumbler...
i think grumbler's point is one of semantics but technically accurate; none of us have seen the transcript of mcreary's testimony; what we have seen is the grand jury report summarizing his testimony
I think the better point is that the grand jury was not investigating McQueary, hence their questions and his answers are not going to be examining his culpability, and hence not going to fully explore what HE did, but rather what he said and to whom.
We still don't know, for example, what his immediate reaction was on seeing the scene in the shower. Did he yell at them, stop it, walk away quietly? Who knows?
CC seems to be saying that since his testimony does not say he did any of those things, then it is reasonable to assume he did not do those things. I don't agree with that - we don't know what he did either way. And it is entirely possible that he did in fact say or do something to stop the immediate rape, but that it is not included in the summary, and maybe not even in the testimony.
We simply do not know. CC wants to assume that since we know what he said he did, we know *everything* that he actually did. That is logically fallacious. The testimony does not include him stating that he drove his car to Paternos house the next day, does that mean we can assume he walked, or took a bus? No - it means that if the issue of how he got to Paterno's hous comes up in a related discussion, the answer is simply "I don't know".
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
i.e., we dont know what mcreary testified to; we know what the grand jury tells us he testified to
Exactly.
And that could be incomplete because
1. The grand jury may not have found all his testimony relevant,
2. The grand jury may not have asked him a single question about what he did the moment he saw Sandusky in the shower, and/or
3. The grand jury simply neglected to mention it as an oversight.
I bet there is likely hundreds of pages of transcripts and such for a case like this. It is silly to assume that the summary includes every single pertinent fact, especially to a tangential discussion to the facts that the grand jury was attempting to ascertain.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 01:22:05 PM
I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.
One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.
Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked? I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation. Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
i think the grand jury report does answer some of those things
iirc the report says mcreary immediately left and called his dad upon seeing the scene
the report goes to great lengths to point out the strength and credibility of his testimony
nonetheless it is compley devoid of any suggestion that mcreary tried to intervene and indeed suggests just the opposite (without stating a negative)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:25:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 03:16:29 PM
But I don't find him NOT doing that anything worthy of comparing him to Sandusky for, or even particularly terrible compared to almost everyone else involved. Lots of people did not go to the police who clearly should have - calling the one guy who actually did SOMETHING the villain is bizarre, to me.
First, no one has suggested anyone is comparable to what Sandusky did.
Uhh, people in this thread have stated that they hope McQueary kills himself. That suggests a pretty serious level of "bad".
Quote
Second, the fact that lots (5 that we know) of people, all known to eachother, did not go to the police is one of the facts that leads one to think there might have been a consipiracy of silence.
There might have been - assuming there was (and that one of those people in particular, and the one who actually started the entire investigation to boot) was a party to that conspiracy wihtout some actual evidence in order to support the idea that we should all hope he dies, is a bit of a stretch.
Quote
Calling this guy a villain for something he did not do - step in and stop the rape
You have no idea what happened in this regard.
Quote
or at the very least inform the police rather than call his father is not bizarre at all.
He certainly should have informed the police. But you guys act like he did nothing at all, which is simply not true. He informed his superiors, and when he was contacted by the police testified to what he saw.
He did not do enough, certainly.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 01:22:05 PM
I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.
One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.
Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked? I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation. Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.
....This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
...
now that's hyperbole
have you already forgotten lettow and dorsey and mishka and jaron?
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
i think the grand jury report does answer some of those things
iirc the report says mcreary immediately left and called his dad upon seeing the scene
the report goes to great lengths to point out the strength and credibility of his testimony
nonetheless it is compley devoid of any suggestion that mcreary tried to intervene and indeed suggests just the opposite (without stating a negative)
This is all reason to wonder what he did do. But it is not reason to even know what he SHOULD have done.
The one thing we know is that he said both Sandusky and the victim saw him, and knew he was there. That suggests that something happened, unless we assume that they just kept at it after seeing him, then the rape ended. Now, that hardly clears McQueary - after all, for all he knows Sandusky continued raping the kid somewhere else.
But we don't know. That is my only point - we do not know.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 03:58:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 01:22:05 PM
I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.
One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.
Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked? I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation. Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.
....This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
...
now that's hyperbole
have you already forgotten lettow and dorsey and mishka and jaron?
A few racists and a fraudster. None of their statements were any where near as monstrous as what I quoted.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 03:30:41 PM
It isn't his reaction on the spur of the moment that people find puzzling - it is his continued non-action when he's told that, basically, all that will happen is that the fellow won't be allowed to use the shower anymore.
Is that what he was told? When was he told that?
The argument that he should have pressed the matter at some point when he wasn't interviewed by police has some merit, but it isn't clear to me that anyone reported to him that there would be no investigation, and we are left with that whole frog in cold but heating water issue; at what point does the frog, or McQueary, find the stimulus to act? Investigations often take a long time and often do not report progress to witnesses. A McQueary assumption that events are proceeding according to the law isn't an unreasonable one; why would he assume the university higher-ups are in fact engaged in a cover-up of what he witnessed?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
Tim gets ridiculous. News at 11.
the fact is we all want to believe that we would have been a combination of dudley doo-rights and we all would have done better and more and we would have saved the day
the truth is none of us can say what we would have done in the same time and circumstances
it's easy to be the arm chair hero with nothing to lose by stating what the right thing to do is in a moment of crisis; it's clearly much harder to do the right thing
by any yard stick you'd like to use one week ago everyone (save am scips :rolleyes: ) thought joe pa was an honest morale man who epitomized all that was wholesome in collegiate sports....he walked to and from the ball games, he graduated his players, the only time the ncaa came knocking was because he bought a sports coat for one of his underprivileged players who needed to dress up for an awards banquet, and he gave millions of dollars to charity
we now have reason to believe that in a certain time and place, the best among us failed to do the right thing, and indeed may have rationalized his way into repeatedly doing the wrong thing
if there is a lesson here, it ought to be that you dont know what you wouldve done only what you hope you wouldve done
the one thing ive learned after two decades of dealing with morally bankrupt people is that evil people don't believe their evil because their dogs still love them
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
Same at ya.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
What. The. Fuck.
If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.
I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment? I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would. :mellow:
Are we sure he actually saw the boy being actively raped in the shower?
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2011, 04:17:15 PM
Tim gets ridiculous. News at 11.
100% serious. I'm very regretful that I've played things up in a hyperbolic fashion before, because it severely lessens impact in the few times I'm serious.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:20:21 PM
Are we sure he actually saw the boy being actively raped in the shower?
That's what the report says.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:20:21 PM
Are we sure he actually saw the boy being actively raped in the shower?
He appears to have said so in the indictment report and he also claims both Sandusky and the boy saw him.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
What. The. Fuck.
If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.
I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment? I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would. :mellow:
exactly; it's easy to be the monday morning quarterback...there are three hundred million in america alone
sunday afternoon quarterbacks on the other hand? well there are only 32 of those jobs available.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2011, 03:42:41 PM
This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy. we know what he says he saw and what he says he did because well that is what he said to the Grand Jury.
How do you know everything he said to the grand jury? I have seen only summaries issued by the DA, and the DA had no reason to report things like
(1) at what point did McQueary actually realize that the victim looked like he was ten years old?
(2) why didn't McQueary go to the police?
(3) what was McQueary told by Curley, Paterno, or anyone else about the status of the investigation or the disposition of the case?
If you claim that "we" know
exactly what the answers to these questions are (and surely they are relevant to the damnation of McQueary), then share the answers. If not, then stop claiming you know
exactly what he said.
Reasonable people await facts before accusing people of taking a job i return for silence, or that they should kill themselves, or anything else. About McQueary and his motives we actually know very little.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 04:17:39 PM
the fact is we all want to believe that we would have been a combination of dudley doo-rights and we all would have done better and more and we would have saved the day
the truth is none of us can say what we would have done in the same time and circumstances
it's easy to be the arm chair hero with nothing to lose by stating what the right thing to do is in a moment of crisis; it's clearly much harder to do the right thing
by any yard stick you'd like to use one week ago everyone (save am scips :rolleyes: ) thought joe pa was an honest morale man who epitomized all that was wholesome in collegiate sports....he walked to and from the ball games, he graduated his players, the only time the ncaa came knocking was because he bought a sports coat for one of his underprivileged players who needed to dress up for an awards banquet, and he gave millions of dollars to charity
we now have reason to believe that in a certain time and place, the best among us failed to do the right thing, and indeed may have rationalized his way into repeatedly doing the wrong thing
if there is a lesson here, it ought to be that you dont know what you wouldve done only what you hope you wouldve done
the one thing ive learned after two decades of dealing with morally bankrupt people is that evil people don't believe their evil because their dogs still love them
People are indeed horrible. You coach football extremely succesfully for 61 years, but protect ONE serial pedophile... :(
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
What. The. Fuck.
If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.
I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment? I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would. :mellow:
CC and friends hope you will now commit suicide. :P
You are just that contemptible.
I'm not a native speaker but does "walk away" mean "immediately call the cops on your cellphone upon exiting the room"?
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
i.e., we dont know what mcreary testified to; we know what the grand jury tells us he testified to
We know a little bit about what the gj says he testified about. The difference between incomplete information and exact knowledge isn't semantics.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
What. The. Fuck.
If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.
I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment? I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would. :mellow:
That's not what he argued. I can understand someone being traumatized by seeing that and running away in a panic.
Yi made a very insidious argument that unless the kid was resisting or screaming then most would assume it was consensual and not their problem. He also quibbled about the age, as if anyone could mistake a 10 year old for someone of the age of consent.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 03:30:41 PM
It isn't his reaction on the spur of the moment that people find puzzling - it is his continued non-action when he's told that, basically, all that will happen is that the fellow won't be allowed to use the shower anymore.
Is that what he was told? When was he told that?
The argument that he should have pressed the matter at some point when he wasn't interviewed by police has some merit, but it isn't clear to me that anyone reported to him that there would be no investigation, and we are left with that whole frog in cold but heating water issue; at what point does the frog, or McQueary, find the stimulus to act? Investigations often take a long time and often do not report progress to witnesses. A McQueary assumption that events are proceeding according to the law isn't an unreasonable one; why would he assume the university higher-ups are in fact engaged in a cover-up of what he witnessed?
It's in Berkut's summary above:
Quote— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile.
So, basically, the charity will be informed and the keys to the locker room removed. There is no suggestion here or anywhere else that anything else was going to happen.
It seems that everyone involved was okay with that. I dunno if it amounts to an active 'cover up' (I associate that with actual threats like 'don't talk or you are fired' and no-one has alleged any were made), more like a bunch of like-minded folks in the same biz deciding to take minimal action against one of their 'own', as if what he'd done was more an embarrasing
faux pas than a serious crime - which in a way is almost worse: they all seem to assume that this was a
reasonable response.
I think it's worth mentioning the type of culture you tend to have at big universities or big corporations or any big organization for that matter. When someone reports something is wrong to a higher up it's easy for that higher up to go "we're taking care of it, such and such is being done and it'll all be fine". Sometimes that's true. You would think with a serious matter like this "such and such" would get done and the appropriate steps taken. I think both Paterno and McQueary were sold that line, and if you hear it many times and it usually is taken care of you tend to rely on it. This is a type of situation that it's uncomfortable to get involved and so it's quite a relief when you hear someone else is dealing with it. It's unfortunate that McQueary and Paterno didn't pursue the matter further but it isn't nearly as heinous as what was actually done or the cover up by the upper level people which let it continue and let Sandusky get away scott free for so long.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:25:32 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
i.e., we dont know what mcreary testified to; we know what the grand jury tells us he testified to
We know a little bit about what the gj says he testified about. The difference between incomplete information and exact knowledge isn't semantics.
i agree with you on most of the what ifs but what he did in the moment he saw the rape is a huge freaking deal and was most certainly addressed in his testimony; given the level of minutiae on some of the report, had mcreary tried to be the hero in his testimony surely the report wouldve mentioned it, especially where mcreary's testimony and credibility forms the basis for the perjury charges
instead the report is written in a manner to suggest that mcreary promptly fled the scene and called his father
i have to believe that this report was edited for days before being released
as it relates to this issue i think we've got the best possible spin that the prosecutor could put on mcrearys version of victim two
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
What. The. Fuck.
If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.
I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment? I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would. :mellow:
That's not what he argued. I can understand someone being traumatized by seeing that and running away in a panic.
Yi made a very insidious argument that unless the kid was resisting or screaming then most would assume it was consensual and not their problem. He also quibbled about the age, as if anyone could mistake a 10 year old for someone of the age of consent.
Fight the good fight, Tim. Don't let the forum pedos step on you.
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2011, 04:34:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
What. The. Fuck.
If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.
I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment? I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would. :mellow:
That's not what he argued. I can understand someone being traumatized by seeing that and running away in a panic.
Yi made a very insidious argument that unless the kid was resisting or screaming then most would assume it was consensual and not their problem. He also quibbled about the age, as if anyone could mistake a 10 year old for someone of the age of consent.
Fight the good fight, Tim. Don't let the forum pedos step on you.
i thought you were one of the pedos?
i get so confused
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 04:00:15 PM
This is all reason to wonder what he did do. But it is not reason to even know what he SHOULD have done.
The one thing we know is that he said both Sandusky and the victim saw him, and knew he was there. That suggests that something happened, unless we assume that they just kept at it after seeing him, then the rape ended. Now, that hardly clears McQueary - after all, for all he knows Sandusky continued raping the kid somewhere else.
But we don't know. That is my only point - we do not know.
Indeed. The evidence we have is inconclusive. McQueary may not have even comprehended at the time that what he witnessed was a crime. He certainly realized that what he saw was wrong, on some level, and reported it. Should he have called the cops right away? Yes, in retrospect, he should. Instead, he did what a confused person would do, and asked his most trusted advisor, his father, what he should do. His father didn't tell him to call the police, he told McQueary to come back to his fathers house immediately, and after hearing the story told McQueary to go to Paterno, which McQueary did.
At some point, McQueary should have realized that insufficient action was being taken and that he needed to go to the police himself, but at what point did that obligation exist? That isn't clear to me, and it seems entirely human that he trusted the system to act until the whole event and its investigation got buried under the day-to-day obligations he had, and nothing triggered a re-assessment of his actions until the police contacted him (too) many years later.
So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 04:36:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2011, 04:34:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
What. The. Fuck.
If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.
I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment? I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would. :mellow:
That's not what he argued. I can understand someone being traumatized by seeing that and running away in a panic.
Yi made a very insidious argument that unless the kid was resisting or screaming then most would assume it was consensual and not their problem. He also quibbled about the age, as if anyone could mistake a 10 year old for someone of the age of consent.
Fight the good fight, Tim. Don't let the forum pedos step on you.
i thought you were one of the pedos?
i get so confused
Nah.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 04:27:40 PM
So, basically, the charity will be informed and the keys to the locker room removed. There is no suggestion here or anywhere else that anything else was going to happen.
It seems that everyone involved was okay with that. I dunno if it amounts to an active 'cover up' (I associate that with actual threats like 'don't talk or you are fired' and no-one has alleged any were made), more like a bunch of like-minded folks in the same biz deciding to take minimal action against one of their 'own', as if what he'd done was more an embarrasing faux pas than a serious crime - which in a way is almost worse: they all seem to assume that this was a reasonable response.
The charity reference is a nice touch. It's like kicking it up the chain of command. Sandusky wasn't a coach anymore, so it sounds right that Second Mile should be taking care of it not the school. It is disturbing if that was all they said would be done, but I'm sure they coated it with many soothing "don't worry about it"s.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 04:27:40 PM
It's in Berkut's summary above:
Quote— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile.
So, basically, the charity will be informed and the keys to the locker room removed. There is no suggestion here or anywhere else that anything else was going to happen.
So you assume, from this summary by a sports site, that McQueary was told that this would be the only action taken? Okay. I, however, reject the idea that lack of evidence in a summary document not dealing with the question at hand says anything except that the summarizer didn't think anything else was necessary to the summary.
In other words, i contend that we don't actually know enough about what McQueary was told to conclude anything. I don't think we have any evidence to exonerate McQueary, but I also don't think we have evidence to condemn him.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.
in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.
in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil
Indeed.
I would content that Sandusky was probably a pretty evil guy, even if he doesn't think he is...
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.
in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil
Hell even in criminal court I've only prosecuted maybe a half dozen people who were a complete and utter waste of skin. Almost everyone has a decent side to them - guys who repeatedly and savagely beat their wife might be good providers for their children, or some such.
Trying to divide the world into 'good guys' and 'bad guys' is a fools errand.
I think we are just going for "people who should live" and "people we hope will commit suicide".
Surely that is a much simpler division?
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 04:50:43 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.
in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil
Indeed.
I would content that Sandusky was probably a pretty evil guy, even if he doesn't think he is...
Even Sandusky - he probably did help a lot of kids through that charity, and probably was genuine in wanting to help them.
Doesn't make what he did any less heinous though.
In short - I'm just tired of hearing how every single accused who is pleading out 'oves his mother and supports his kids'. I. Don't. Care. You do the crime, you do the time.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 04:52:09 PM
I think we are just going for "people who should live" and "people we hope will commit suicide".
Surely that is a much simpler division?
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 04:52:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 04:50:43 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.
in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil
Indeed.
I would content that Sandusky was probably a pretty evil guy, even if he doesn't think he is...
Even Sandusky - he probably did help a lot of kids through that charity, and probably was genuine in wanting to help them.
Doesn't make what he did any less heinous though.
In short - I'm just tired of hearing how every single accused who is pleading out 'oves his mother and supports his kids'. I. Don't. Care. You do the crime, you do the time.
i suspect that sandusky is seriously mentally ill and knew he had a problem as evidenced by his telling the mother of one of his victims in 1998 that he wished he were dead
i truly believe that this is why the death penalty is needed for pediophiles; they engage in compulsive behavior
given opportunity, they will act on it
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.
Only if you assume cowardice is not in and of itself evil.
Unless the grand jury report is completely inaccurate, he knew about Sandusky, and perhaps for some period he thought an investigation was ongoing, but as the years went on he knew Sandusky was free. He also did nothing to help the boy he saw (even if he temporarily froze, that doesn't excuse how the next day he did not do whatever it took to extricate the boy from that situation).
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 04:57:21 PM
i suspect that sandusky is seriously mentally ill and knew he had a problem as evidenced by his telling the mother of one of his victims in 1998 that he wished he were dead
i truly believe that this is why the death penalty is needed for pediophiles; they engage in compulsive behavior
given opportunity, they will act on it
I'm not sure if pedophilia actually qualifies as a mental illness or not.
Feeling remorse and guilt is not a sign of mental illess - rather it is the opposite.
And I disagree - there are numerous pedophiles who never act on their impulses, or only act on them when their faculties are reduced. The whole world of internet kiddie porn has shown us there are numerous men who have sexual desires towards children, but wouldn't dream of doing anything physical about it.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 04:45:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 04:27:40 PM
It's in Berkut's summary above:
Quote— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile.
So, basically, the charity will be informed and the keys to the locker room removed. There is no suggestion here or anywhere else that anything else was going to happen.
So you assume, from this summary by a sports site, that McQueary was told that this would be the only action taken? Okay. I, however, reject the idea that lack of evidence in a summary document not dealing with the question at hand says anything except that the summarizer didn't think anything else was necessary to the summary.
In other words, i contend that we don't actually know enough about what McQueary was told to conclude anything. I don't think we have any evidence to exonerate McQueary, but I also don't think we have evidence to condemn him.
I don't agree. To my mind, the situation is evidence,
res ipsa loquitur: unless some
exculpatory evidence is presented (and it had better be good), there is simply no
legitimate route from 'I saw the guy butt-fucking a 10 year old with my own eyes in the locker room' to '... and then I worked as a coach for years while the same guy,
a guy whom I knew damn well raped children, ran
children's charity events on the same campus, free as a bird (with the only restriction being he don't get to use the locker room no more)'.
I agree there's no evidence of some active "cover up". In a way, I'd be more sympathetic to the guy if there
was.
Edit: the info comes from page 7 of the Indictment.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 02:05:15 PMHow confident are you in your ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a kid at the age of consent?
Yes. Absolutely. And as I say this guy's saying that the person he saw Sandusky buggering looked to be 10. That was his subjective opinion, so whether they were a young or an old looking 10 year old doesn't matter.
QuoteAnd does your certainty decrease if the victim were close to, but not yet at, the age of consent? Are you sure you would intervene if the vic looked, say, 14? If you're not sure, then how confident are you in your ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a kid of whatever age your certainty starts to weaken?
Of course it does. As I say it would be different if it was an adolescent who looked possible of age even if they weren't.
I'm not sure I'd intervene. I think I probably would if I was a footballer, as this guy was. But I'd definitely call the police.
I agree with dps that I don't think kicking this upstairs is something that I'd be able to do or any reasonable person would do if they'd witnessed what looked to them like a ten year old being buggered. Possibly if there was an adolescent who could've been of age, but even then given the age gap the power relationship would have inevitably raised suspicions.
More widely I think this case suggests there could be wider problems with these college sports programs and I'd worry about any allegations of women being raped by players or staff that have perhaps not been reported or not taken seriously.
QuoteHe certainly should have informed the police. But you guys act like he did nothing at all, which is simply not true. He informed his superiors, and when he was contacted by the police testified to what he saw.
He did not do enough, certainly.
He did nowhere near enough, especially when I think all that he needed to do was contact the police. I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't given what he saw.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 05:14:15 PMI don't agree. To my mind, the situation is evidence, res ipsa loquitur: unless some exculpatory evidence is presented (and it had better be good), there is simply no legitimate route from 'I saw the guy butt-fucking a 10 year old with my own eyes in the locker room' to '... and then I worked as a coach for years while the same guy, a guy whom I knew damn well raped children, ran children's charity events on the same campus, free as a bird (with the only restriction being he don't get to use the locker room no more)'.
I agree there's no evidence of some active "cover up". In a way, I'd be more sympathetic to the guy if there was.
I agree. Seeing Sandusky again is another point when I think McQueary, given his initial mistake, should have called the police.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 05:21:03 PM
Yes. Absolutely. And as I say this guy's saying that the person he saw Sandusky buggering looked to be 10. That was his subjective opinion, so whether they were a young or an old looking 10 year old doesn't matter.
From McQueary's testemony, at what point did he realize that the kid looked about ten years old?
QuoteI'm not sure I'd intervene. I think I probably would if I was a footballer, as this guy was. But I'd definitely call the police.
Even if your most trusted advisor told you that the person to report this to was Joe Paterno? I'd like to think that I'd call the police rather than my father in that situation, or that I'd disobey my father and tell the police before I told Paterno, I can't say for sure that I would, and I can't say that I condemn McQueary for acting as he did.
QuoteMore widely I think this case suggests there could be wider problems with these college sports programs and I'd worry about any allegations of women being raped by players or staff that have perhaps not been reported or not taken seriously.
Agree. The case raises a lot of troubling issues about abuse of trust.
QuoteI can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't given what he saw.
But you will concede that this statement is about you, and not McQueary, no?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 05:22:24 PM
I agree. Seeing Sandusky again is another point when I think McQueary, given his initial mistake, should have called the police.
I haven't seen this part of the evidence/testimony. When did he see Sandusky again, and under what circumstances?
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 05:30:52 PM
From McQueary's testemony, at what point did he realize that the kid looked about ten years old?
Read pages 7 and 8 of the Indictment. Allegedly, he "realized" the kid looked 10 at the very same moment that he saw him - which also happened to be the same moment he saw S. buggering him.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 05:32:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 05:22:24 PM
I agree. Seeing Sandusky again is another point when I think McQueary, given his initial mistake, should have called the police.
I haven't seen this part of the evidence/testimony. When did he see Sandusky again, and under what circumstances?
Page 11 of the Indictment. S. had the run of the campus,
as was testified by McQ and others. He was prof. emeritus, had an office and phone in the Lasch building, parking privileges, and the run of the recreational facilities. It does not say how many times McQ saw him, but the obvious implication is that he saw him all the time.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 05:30:52 PMEven if your most trusted advisor told you that the person to report this to was Joe Paterno? I'd like to think that I'd call the police rather than my father in that situation, or that I'd disobey my father and tell the police before I told Paterno, I can't say for sure that I would, and I can't say that I condemn McQueary for acting as he did.
Even in that situation - as I say I can't think of the situation when I wouldn't call the police having seen this and I think that's a reasonable standard for most people.
I also think if you put what you guys are saying into clerical language you get into precisely the problem Catholic diocese have had where institutional failure/corruption (I agree Curley comes across particularly badly) is founded upon personal moral failures to take responsibility. If a novice walks in on Brother Aloysius raping a child it is not sufficient that he informs the Bishop who then moves the good brother away from an educational role.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 10, 2011, 04:22:05 PM
exactly; it's easy to be the monday morning quarterback...there are three hundred million in america alone
sunday afternoon quarterbacks on the other hand? well there are only 32 of those jobs available.
I agree. You'll note that I said that I hope that he takes his own life (or that he at least feels badly enough to try it) rather than that someone should kill him. I believe that no matter what I did or didn't do, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knew that my inaction allowed a predator like that to continue doing what I witnessed him doing.
It's the guilt that should take over these people's lives. If they are as upstanding usually as they seem based on these reports, it will. I just hope that that's the case.
Sandusky, on the other hand, should be anally raped daily for the rest of his life. Period.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 05:11:49 PM
I'm not sure if pedophilia actually qualifies as a mental illness or not.
Feeling remorse and guilt is not a sign of mental illess - rather it is the opposite.
And I disagree - there are numerous pedophiles who never act on their impulses, or only act on them when their faculties are reduced. The whole world of internet kiddie porn has shown us there are numerous men who have sexual desires towards children, but wouldn't dream of doing anything physical about it.
Paraphilic disorder, though to be honest field of Psychology is contradictory on this.
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 05:55:50 PM
Sandusky, on the other hand, should be anally raped daily for the rest of his life. Period.
Why?
SAPD getting in on it:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111110_Penn_State_child-sex_probe_widens_to_Texas.html
QuotePolice in San Antonio, Texas are investigating allegations that Jerry Sandusky molested a boy while on a 1998 team trip to the city, a spokesman said.
The probe - based on testimony laid out in last weekend's grand jury presentment - could lead to additional charges for the embattled former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach.
"We are investigating the possibility that an offense may have happened while here in San Antonio," police department spokesman Officer Matthew Porter said.
According to the grand jury report, Sandusky brought the boy in question - identified as Victim 4 - along with his wife to the 1998 Outback Bowl and 1999 Alamo Bowl.
The child traveled to and from both bowl games with the football team and shared their accommodations, the report said. The teen reportedly told the grand jury that when he resisted Sandusky's advances while on that trip, the coach threatened to send him back to Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania prosecutors allege that Sandusky molested at least eight boys between the mid-1990's and 2009, all of whom he met through The Second Mile a charity he founded in 1997.
He has denied all charges.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 05:40:43 PM
Page 11 of the Indictment. S. had the run of the campus, as was testified by McQ and others. He was prof. emeritus, had an office and phone in the Lasch building, parking privileges, and the run of the recreational facilities. It does not say how many times McQ saw him, but the obvious implication is that he saw him all the time.
My first reading of this was that this was still talking about the status in 1999, as in the previous paragraph. A re-reading makes it clear that your interpretation (that the situation in the last paragraph refers to post-2002) is probably the correct one. Grazi.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 04:24:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
I hope I can find a way to live with it.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.
Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.
What. The. Fuck.
If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.
I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment? I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would. :mellow:
CC and friends hope you will now commit suicide. :P
You are just that contemptible.
Really, where did I say that. You are getting as bad as Grumbles.
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2011, 04:31:12 PM
I think it's worth mentioning the type of culture you tend to have at big universities or big corporations or any big organization for that matter. When someone reports something is wrong to a higher up it's easy for that higher up to go "we're taking care of it, such and such is being done and it'll all be fine". Sometimes that's true. You would think with a serious matter like this "such and such" would get done and the appropriate steps taken. I think both Paterno and McQueary were sold that line, and if you hear it many times and it usually is taken care of you tend to rely on it. This is a type of situation that it's uncomfortable to get involved and so it's quite a relief when you hear someone else is dealing with it. It's unfortunate that McQueary and Paterno didn't pursue the matter further but it isn't nearly as heinous as what was actually done or the cover up by the upper level people which let it continue and let Sandusky get away scott free for so long.
I agree with that completely. Moreover, I'd add that the bureaucracy and culture at Penn State seems to be very insular, which adds to the "don't rock the boat" culture.
For instance, McQueary grew up in State College, played football at Penn State, and worked there for his whole career. Seems like a lot of the other coaches were "lifers" also. Obviously Joe Pa has been there forever. Even the University president had been there for 16 years, which seems like a long tenure for a school president. The AD and other official who resigned had also been at Penn State for a very long time.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.
This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.
You simply have no delicacy.
I believe Tim Curley went to Penn State... I'm fairly certain that he and my uncle (who is an alum) met in college. In fact I think they may have been roommates.
Quote from: stjaba on November 10, 2011, 08:36:13 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2011, 04:31:12 PM
I think it's worth mentioning the type of culture you tend to have at big universities or big corporations or any big organization for that matter. When someone reports something is wrong to a higher up it's easy for that higher up to go "we're taking care of it, such and such is being done and it'll all be fine". Sometimes that's true. You would think with a serious matter like this "such and such" would get done and the appropriate steps taken. I think both Paterno and McQueary were sold that line, and if you hear it many times and it usually is taken care of you tend to rely on it. This is a type of situation that it's uncomfortable to get involved and so it's quite a relief when you hear someone else is dealing with it. It's unfortunate that McQueary and Paterno didn't pursue the matter further but it isn't nearly as heinous as what was actually done or the cover up by the upper level people which let it continue and let Sandusky get away scott free for so long.
I agree with that completely. Moreover, I'd add that the bureaucracy and culture at Penn State seems to be very insular, which adds to the "don't rock the boat" culture.
For instance, McQueary grew up in State College, played football at Penn State, and worked there for his whole career. Seems like a lot of the other coaches were "lifers" also. Obviously Joe Pa has been there forever. Even the University president had been there for 16 years, which seems like a long tenure for a school president. The AD and other official who resigned had also been at Penn State for a very long time.
McQueary grew up good friends with one of Sandusky's kids. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he was molested as a kid as well.
And now the speculation and goofiness is really running wild.
Mike McQueary won't be at the Nebraska game due to numerous threats against him. Wonder if Joe Paterno (or any of the other higher-ups) has been threatened as well.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_states_mike_mcqueary_wont.html.
Quote from: Caliga on November 10, 2011, 08:59:32 PM
I believe Tim Curley went to Penn State... I'm fairly certain that he and my uncle (who is an alum) met in college. In fact I think they may have been roommates.
he is an alum and i believe he worked his way up from graduate assistant to atheletic dierctor
i believe he was also a scholarship athlete in some minor sport
Quote from: Neil on November 10, 2011, 09:29:10 PM
And now the speculation and goofiness is really running wild.
It will all sort itself out.
Quote from: stjaba on November 10, 2011, 10:05:25 PM
Mike McQueary won't be at the Nebraska game due to numerous threats against him.
Yeah he needs to hide out for his own protection until this blows over.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 08:47:20 AM
Quote from: stjaba on November 10, 2011, 10:05:25 PM
Mike McQueary won't be at the Nebraska game due to numerous threats against him.
Yeah he needs to hide out for his own protection until this blows over.
More likely they don't want him coaching on TV because of the bad publicity, but can't fire him because he somehow qualifies as a whistleblower. So if they can keep him at home until the end of the season, when the new coaching staff comes in with their own staff he simply won't be renewed and the problem goes away.
So this is what it looks like when a major institution implodes? :hmm:
The morning paper was scathing on the reactions of the students & journalists. Much incomprehension was expressed as to how they could get so angry over the guy's firing (and how very important the game of football appears to be to them).
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 11, 2011, 09:13:11 AM
So this is what it looks like when a major institution implodes? :hmm:
Watch 'Pony Excess' on the ESPN. Old school style implosion.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 11, 2011, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 11, 2011, 09:13:11 AM
So this is what it looks like when a major institution implodes? :hmm:
Watch 'Pony Excess' on the ESPN. Old school implosion.
Oh I watched the hell outta that awhile ago. I eagerly await the 30 for 30 on this fiasco.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 11, 2011, 09:27:26 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 11, 2011, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 11, 2011, 09:13:11 AM
So this is what it looks like when a major institution implodes? :hmm:
Watch 'Pony Excess' on the ESPN. Old school implosion.
Oh I watched the hell outta that awhile ago. I eagerly await the 30 for 30 on this fiasco.
The Roll Tide/War Eagle one on Tuesday was fascinating as well. I POSIONED THOSE TREES. ROLL DAMN TIDE! :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 11, 2011, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 11, 2011, 09:13:11 AM
So this is what it looks like when a major institution implodes? :hmm:
Watch 'Pony Excess' on the ESPN. Old school style implosion.
that was a great documentary
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 09:25:34 AM
The morning paper was scathing on the reactions of the students & journalists. Much incomprehension was expressed as to how they could get so angry over the guy's firing (and how very important the game of football appears to be to them).
Think of it in terms of hockey, that's pretty popular in Canada right? ;)
Imagine that the NHL was confined to Canada, and there was no minor league. All of the players are drafted out of college into the NHL. College hockey would be huge in Canada under those circumstances wouldn't it? In small towns without anything else going on they would be completely dominate. Now imagine one of the best college teams has been coached by the same man for 46 years, and he's been on the staff for 62. He's not only a great coach, but without a doubt has been the most morally upstanding coach during that time span. A paragon of everything good in collegiate athletics. He's built a ten million library for the campus and founded a classics program. The stadium has expanded from holding 30,000 people to 110,000. He would become a literal cult figure.
That's what Paterno was.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2011, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 09:25:34 AM
The morning paper was scathing on the reactions of the students & journalists. Much incomprehension was expressed as to how they could get so angry over the guy's firing (and how very important the game of football appears to be to them).
Think of it in terms of hockey, that's pretty popular in Canada right? ;)
Imagine that the NHL was confined to Canada, and there was no minor league. All of the players are drafted out of college into the NHL. College hockey would be huge in Canada under those circumstances wouldn't it? In small towns without anything else going on they would be completely dominate. Now imagine one of the best college teams has been coached by the same man for 46 years, and he's been on the staff for 62. He's not only a great coach, but without a doubt has been the most morally upstanding coach during that time span. A paragon of everything good in collegiate athletics. He's built a ten million library for the campus and founded a classics program. The stadium has expanded from holding 30,000 people to 110,000. He would become a literal cult figure.
That's what Paterno was.
Colleges are more of larger city phenomena in Canada. I can't think of a single example of a small town with a huge university the way they do it in the US.
neil's point is well taken; college football is a huge rural america phenomenon and pre-exists pro football
doak campbell stadium in tallahassee holds about 86,000 people; the city has a population of 181,000
the swamp in gainesville holds about 88,000 people; the city has a population of about 124,000
compare this with jacksonville florida, the largest city in north florida; we have a population of about 1,000,000 (metro area); we have an nfl team whose stadium holds about 73,000 and we struggle to fill it for the nfl
outside of the northeast, in most of america, college football is king and has no rival
it is the opening discourse in any polite conversation in the fall and wishing someone's team good luck on saturday is as gracious a closing to correspondence or a conversation as any other
it is in that arena that joe pa had become a living legend; while still alive he and bobby had statues made in their image and placed outside of their respective stadiums; it is quite simply a prominent fall from grace and disillusioning experience on an epic scale
Quote from: Rasputin on November 11, 2011, 12:08:22 PM
it is the opening discourse in any polite conversation
God this is so true.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 11, 2011, 12:08:22 PM
it is quite simply a prominent fall from grace and disillusioning experience on an epic scale
The rioters haven't been disillusioned.
It's fun to tell people I hate college basketball down here. It's like I called their granny a whore or something.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2011, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 09:25:34 AM
The morning paper was scathing on the reactions of the students & journalists. Much incomprehension was expressed as to how they could get so angry over the guy's firing (and how very important the game of football appears to be to them).
Think of it in terms of hockey, that's pretty popular in Canada right? ;)
Imagine that the NHL was confined to Canada, and there was no minor league. All of the players are drafted out of college into the NHL. College hockey would be huge in Canada under those circumstances wouldn't it? In small towns without anything else going on they would be completely dominate. Now imagine one of the best college teams has been coached by the same man for 46 years, and he's been on the staff for 62. He's not only a great coach, but without a doubt has been the most morally upstanding coach during that time span. A paragon of everything good in collegiate athletics. He's built a ten million library for the campus and founded a classics program. The stadium has expanded from holding 30,000 people to 110,000. He would become a literal cult figure.
That's what Paterno was.
There have been Canadian sex scandals involving similar allegations against coaches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_James_(ice_hockey)
I do not remember anyone rioting.
Mind you, he wasn't anything like as prominent as these characters.
Quote from: Caliga on November 11, 2011, 12:21:28 PM
It's fun to tell people I hate college basketball down here. It's like I called their granny a whore or something.
I am sensing you find the team or sport the most people love in your area of residence and then relish telling everybody how much you hate it.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 12:25:07 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 11, 2011, 12:21:28 PM
It's fun to tell people I hate college basketball down here. It's like I called their granny a whore or something.
I am sensing you find the team or sport the most people love in your area of residence and then relish telling everybody how much you hate it.
He's gonna be in trouble when he moves to an area where the team sport is eating barbeque and ogling big-breasted women. ;)
Quote from: Rasputin on November 11, 2011, 12:08:22 PM
neil's point is well taken; college football is a huge rural america phenomenon and pre-exists pro football
doak campbell stadium in tallahassee holds about 86,000 people; the city has a population of 181,000
the swamp in gainesville holds about 88,000 people; the city has a population of about 124,000
compare this with jacksonville florida, the largest city in north florida; we have a population of about 1,000,000 (metro area); we have an nfl team whose stadium holds about 73,000 and we struggle to fill it for the nfl
outside of the northeast, in most of america, college football is king and has no rival
it is the opening discourse in any polite conversation in the fall and wishing someone's team good luck on saturday is as gracious a closing to correspondence or a conversation as any other
it is in that arena that joe pa had become a living legend; while still alive he and bobby had statues made in their image and placed outside of their respective stadiums; it is quite simply a prominent fall from grace and disillusioning experience on an epic scale
That's just it: up here, the sheer level of prominance and adulation given to these figures is considered bizzare and excessive - and nothing brings that to attention more than this scandal.
I can't think of any Canadian equivalent, off the top of my head. I mean, statues in their image? Rioting when they are fired? It's ... odd.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 12:25:07 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 11, 2011, 12:21:28 PM
It's fun to tell people I hate college basketball down here. It's like I called their granny a whore or something.
I am sensing you find the team or sport the most people love in your area of residence and then relish telling everybody how much you hate it.
I'm a rebel, Dottie... a loner.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 12:30:24 PM
That's just it: up here, the sheer level of prominance and adulation given to these figures is considered bizzare and excessive
Not just up there...
I feel funny down there.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 11, 2011, 12:08:22 PM
neil's point is well taken; college football is a huge rural america phenomenon and pre-exists pro football
doak campbell stadium in tallahassee holds about 86,000 people; the city has a population of 181,000
the swamp in gainesville holds about 88,000 people; the city has a population of about 124,000
compare this with jacksonville florida, the largest city in north florida; we have a population of about 1,000,000 (metro area); we have an nfl team whose stadium holds about 73,000 and we struggle to fill it for the nfl
outside of the northeast, in most of america, college football is king and has no rival
it is the opening discourse in any polite conversation in the fall and wishing someone's team good luck on saturday is as gracious a closing to correspondence or a conversation as any other
it is in that arena that joe pa had become a living legend; while still alive he and bobby had statues made in their image and placed outside of their respective stadiums; it is quite simply a prominent fall from grace and disillusioning experience on an epic scale
That's just it: up here, the sheer level of prominance and adulation given to these figures is considered bizzare and excessive - and nothing brings that to attention more than this scandal.
I can't think of any Canadian equivalent, off the top of my head. I mean, statues in their image? Rioting when they are fired? It's ... odd.
Imagine if Scotty Bowman spent his whole career with the Winnipeg Jets or the Quebec Nordiques from 1967-2002 and won nine Stanley Cups. Don't you think in a small city like Winnipeg or Quebec he'd be a dominating figure?
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 11, 2011, 12:08:22 PM
neil's point is well taken; college football is a huge rural america phenomenon and pre-exists pro football
doak campbell stadium in tallahassee holds about 86,000 people; the city has a population of 181,000
the swamp in gainesville holds about 88,000 people; the city has a population of about 124,000
compare this with jacksonville florida, the largest city in north florida; we have a population of about 1,000,000 (metro area); we have an nfl team whose stadium holds about 73,000 and we struggle to fill it for the nfl
outside of the northeast, in most of america, college football is king and has no rival
it is the opening discourse in any polite conversation in the fall and wishing someone's team good luck on saturday is as gracious a closing to correspondence or a conversation as any other
it is in that arena that joe pa had become a living legend; while still alive he and bobby had statues made in their image and placed outside of their respective stadiums; it is quite simply a prominent fall from grace and disillusioning experience on an epic scale
That's just it: up here, the sheer level of prominance and adulation given to these figures is considered bizzare and excessive - and nothing brings that to attention more than this scandal.
I can't think of any Canadian equivalent, off the top of my head. I mean, statues in their image? Rioting when they are fired? It's ... odd.
Well, plenty of people down here think that the level of attention lavished on sports is excessive.
The reason this stings is that Penn State was always an example of supposedly how even the most extreme passion can be positive - the passion of their fan base was not devoted to a bunch of thugs, criminals, and sleezeballs. Penn State did it right...or at least everyone thought they did.
Quote from: Caliga on November 11, 2011, 12:30:28 PM
I'm a rebel, Dottie... a loner.
It is kind of a pitty because I was looking forward to the crazy stories of 'ewe-kay' basketball nuttiness.
If we didn't riot when Gretzky left town, we're not going to riot.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 12:30:24 PM
That's just it: up here, the sheer level of prominance and adulation given to these figures is considered bizzare and excessive - and nothing brings that to attention more than this scandal.
I can't think of any Canadian equivalent, off the top of my head. I mean, statues in their image? Rioting when they are fired? It's ... odd.
Taking sports so seriously you would build statues to heros or riot over them is messed up. Glad to hear that stuff doesn't happen in Canada. :P
To be fair to the PSU rioters, they have nothing on Vancouver. http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/image/201106/phpNG25fEriot1.jpg
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 11, 2011, 01:33:12 PM
To be fair to the PSU rioters, they have nothing on Vancouver. http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/image/201106/phpNG25fEriot1.jpg
I prefer this pic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/17/vancouver-riot-kiss-photograph-mystery#zoomed-picture
Hott!
Anyway, drunken-hooligan fans rioting when their team loses is one thing; rioting in support of a guy fired because he allegedly covered up for a child rapist is quit another ...
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
Anyway, drunken-hooligan fans rioting when their team loses is one thing; rioting in support of a guy fired because he allegedly covered up for a child rapist is quit another ...
I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 11, 2011, 01:33:12 PM
To be fair to the PSU rioters, they have nothing on Vancouver. http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/image/201106/phpNG25fEriot1.jpg (http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/image/201106/phpNG25fEriot1.jpg)
I prefer this pic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/17/vancouver-riot-kiss-photograph-mystery#zoomed-picture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/17/vancouver-riot-kiss-photograph-mystery#zoomed-picture)
Hott!
Anyway, drunken-hooligan fans rioting when their team loses is one thing; rioting in support of a guy fired because he allegedly covered up for a child rapist is quit another ...
He did a good job as coach.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
Anyway, drunken-hooligan fans rioting when their team loses is one thing; rioting in support of a guy fired because he allegedly covered up for a child rapist is quit another ...
Are there allegations that Paterno covered up for a child rapist? The Board of Regents said they fired him because they wanted the university to begin to move forward from the charges alleged against other officials, and Paterno was part of the situation they wanted to leave behind (because he clearly had the power and duty to report what he knew to the police). If they were lying, and really fired him because someone was alleging that he engaged in a coverup, how do
you know, when no one else seems to?
Mind you, I don't get the rioting myself, but I certainly don't think the rioters were aware (any more than I am) that there were actual allegations that Paterno covered up for a rapist. Their anger appeared to be directed at the board that fired him and the reasons the board
claims motivated them to do so. Paterno was retiring after this season, the protestors argued, and to fire him three games from retirement seemed unjust to them (and motivated by some weird media conspiracy thingy, but that's another issue).
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.
Trying to tell a Canadian that injustice is a more valid reason to riot than hockey is pretty obviously doomed from the start, eh?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.
That does not appear to be the tone of the complaints. So far, most of what is written isn't 'the Grand Jury was wrong' but 'our guy may have made a mistake but he's really a great guy'.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/joepa_love_fueled_riot_fires_vxT8UYmQ4yxPDyyiiO6SaJ?utm_campaign=Post10&utm_source=Post10Alpha
Quote
No one denies Paterno could have done more dealing with the horrible tragedy that occurred under his watch. But students were mostly annoyed with how the administration handled Paterno's firing.
It's the equivalent of, instead of the little boy plaintively stating "say in ain't so, Joe" over the "Black Sox' scandal, he torched a cop car in anger over Joe being fired. It's an express toleration of criminal behaviour if someone is prominent enough.
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2011, 02:17:22 PM
Are there allegations that Paterno covered up for a child rapist? The Board of Regents said they fired him because they wanted the university to begin to move forward from the charges alleged against other officials, and Paterno was part of the situation they wanted to leave behind (because he clearly had the power and duty to report what he knew to the police). If they were lying, and really fired him because someone was alleging that he engaged in a coverup, how do you know, when no one else seems to?
Mind you, I don't get the rioting myself, but I certainly don't think the rioters were aware (any more than I am) that there were actual allegations that Paterno covered up for a rapist. Their anger appeared to be directed at the board that fired him and the reasons the board claims motivated them to do so. Paterno was retiring after this season, the protestors argued, and to fire him three games from retirement seemed unjust to them (and motivated by some weird media conspiracy thingy, but that's another issue).
It is the reversal of the normal order of priorities here that is so very unpleasant. You can create all the semantic weasling you want, but fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much. Neither did anyone else. In this situation, heads rolling is to be expected.
You can say he's not "alleged" to have "covered up for a child rapist" (whatever you may mean by that) but surely the thing speaks for itself. He *knew* his friend was raping kids and for *years* he did *nothing*. Sure, he wasn't charged. But surely to Christ the reasons for his firing are no mystery, and if he was pretty well anyone else in this situation, there wouldn't be any controversy.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:20:06 PM
It's the equivalent of, instead of the little boy plaintively stating "say in ain't so, Joe" over the "Black Sox' scandal, he torched a cop car in anger over Joe being fired. It's an express toleration of criminal behaviour if someone is prominent enough.
Just curious, Mal, but why do you have such a hard-on for this case, to the point where you will engage in naked fabrication in order to reinforce your point? No one is expressing toleration of criminal behavior because the criminals are prominent; the criminal behavior (destruction of property) is being done by anonymous members of a mob. No one has even alleged, as far as I know, that the prominent guy (JoPa) engaged in criminal behavior (much to your apparent irritation, to the point that you are now ignoring facts in favor of your preferred fabrications).
What happened to your self-respect?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2011, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 09:25:34 AM
The morning paper was scathing on the reactions of the students & journalists. Much incomprehension was expressed as to how they could get so angry over the guy's firing (and how very important the game of football appears to be to them).
Think of it in terms of hockey, that's pretty popular in Canada right? ;)
Imagine that the NHL was confined to Canada, and there was no minor league. All of the players are drafted out of college into the NHL. College hockey would be huge in Canada under those circumstances wouldn't it? In small towns without anything else going on they would be completely dominate. Now imagine one of the best college teams has been coached by the same man for 46 years, and he's been on the staff for 62. He's not only a great coach, but without a doubt has been the most morally upstanding coach during that time span. A paragon of everything good in collegiate athletics. He's built a ten million library for the campus and founded a classics program. The stadium has expanded from holding 30,000 people to 110,000. He would become a literal cult figure.
That's what Paterno was.
We don't have to imagine anything.
You are unfamiliar with the world of junior hockey in Canada. 16-20 year olds, and where about 80% of all NHL players are drafted from. If you're in a junior hockey town, the team is the number one entertainment ticket in town.
We also had a sex abuse scandal in junior hockey. Google Graham James, Sheldon Kennedy, or Theo Fleury.
Nobody rioted in favour of Graham James when the revelations came out.
I can understand the culture of machismo and secrecy, and can understand why people wouldn't talk about incidents. But once those incidents become public knowledge, its inconceivable to me that anyone would defend the abuser, or those who helped hide that abuse.
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2011, 02:18:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.
Trying to tell a Canadian that injustice is a more valid reason to riot than hockey is pretty obviously doomed from the start, eh?
Hey - the Vancouver riots (and the Montreal riots, and the earlier Vancouver riots) are absolutely a black mark on Canada, and trying to compare which riot is more 'justified' is a fools errand.
Quote from: Barrister on November 11, 2011, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2011, 02:18:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.
Trying to tell a Canadian that injustice is a more valid reason to riot than hockey is pretty obviously doomed from the start, eh?
Hey - the Vancouver riots (and the Montreal riots, and the earlier Vancouver riots) are absolutely a black mark on Canada, and trying to compare which riot is more 'justified' is a fools errand.
So why the mystification?
People are stupid, and often have fucked up priorities. If you get enough of these stupid people together with their fucked up priorities, they engage in stupidity on a grand scale.
There is nothing mystifying about it.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2011, 02:17:22 PM
Are there allegations that Paterno covered up for a child rapist? The Board of Regents said they fired him because they wanted the university to begin to move forward from the charges alleged against other officials, and Paterno was part of the situation they wanted to leave behind (because he clearly had the power and duty to report what he knew to the police). If they were lying, and really fired him because someone was alleging that he engaged in a coverup, how do you know, when no one else seems to?
Mind you, I don't get the rioting myself, but I certainly don't think the rioters were aware (any more than I am) that there were actual allegations that Paterno covered up for a rapist. Their anger appeared to be directed at the board that fired him and the reasons the board claims motivated them to do so. Paterno was retiring after this season, the protestors argued, and to fire him three games from retirement seemed unjust to them (and motivated by some weird media conspiracy thingy, but that's another issue).
It is the reversal of the normal order of priorities here that is so very unpleasant. You can create all the semantic weasling you want, but fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much. Neither did anyone else. In this situation, heads rolling is to be expected.
I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that you don't know who has alleged that JoPa "covered up for a child rapist", or that you do? So far, this sounds like a weasel to get out of a fabrication on your part.
QuoteYou can say he's not "alleged" to have "covered up for a child rapist" (whatever you may mean by that) but surely the thing speaks for itself.
You say that he is alleged to have "covered up for a child rapist." That has a specific meaning. If you are going to weasel out ofthe accusation by claiming that you didn't mean "alleged' and didn't mean "covered up" but rather meant something else that doesn't have to be articulated because "it speaks for itself," then the weasel is noted and accepted. You are obviously over-wrought for some reason when it comes to this topic, and seem to have lost all capacity for objective comment on the case, so I will ignore all you say from this point forward, for your sake.
QuoteHe *knew* his friend was raping kids and for *years* he did *nothing*. Sure, he wasn't charged. But surely to Christ the reasons for his firing are no mystery, and if he was pretty well anyone else in this situation, there wouldn't be any controversy.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever, Jesus. As far as I know, the only controversy here regards the extent of Paterno's actually knowledge. Your dogmatic insistence that you know the answer to this controversy is most extremely unpersuasive.
Quote from: Barrister on November 11, 2011, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2011, 02:18:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.
Trying to tell a Canadian that injustice is a more valid reason to riot than hockey is pretty obviously doomed from the start, eh?
Hey - the Vancouver riots (and the Montreal riots, and the earlier Vancouver riots) are absolutely a black mark on Canada, and trying to compare which riot is more 'justified' is a fools errand.
:secret: No one is seriously trying to make that comparison. It is a series of tongue-in-cheek posts.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:34:14 PM
and if he was pretty well anyone else in this situation, there wouldn't be any controversy.
This is true. I don't believe any of the protestors were carrying around cardboard cut-outs of the ousted University President or were crying in the streets outside his house.
Quote from: Barrister on November 11, 2011, 02:43:57 PM
I can understand the culture of machismo and secrecy, and can understand why people wouldn't talk about incidents. But once those incidents become public knowledge, its inconceivable to me that anyone would defend the abuser, or those who helped hide that abuse.
It is probably just as well that it is inconceivable to you, as I doubt that it will happen. It certainly hasn't in this case.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.
That does not appear to be the tone of the complaints. So far, most of what is written isn't 'the Grand Jury was wrong' but 'our guy may have made a mistake but he's really a great guy'.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/joepa_love_fueled_riot_fires_vxT8UYmQ4yxPDyyiiO6SaJ?utm_campaign=Post10&utm_source=Post10Alpha
Quote
No one denies Paterno could have done more dealing with the horrible tragedy that occurred under his watch. But students were mostly annoyed with how the administration handled Paterno's firing.
It's the equivalent of, instead of the little boy plaintively stating "say in ain't so, Joe" over the "Black Sox' scandal, he torched a cop car in anger over Joe being fired. It's an express toleration of criminal behaviour if someone is prominent enough.
What a curious example you chose regarding Shoeless Joe Jackson. In baseball circles a century later there is still extensive debate whether his treatment was just, even though most believe he had some type of knowledge.
Here, I think there is a sense that the administration could have done more, but who knew what, and when, hasn't been established, so the extent of any personal failures by Paterno haven't either. Hell, I could be wrong, but I don't think the Board of Trustees was willing to go so far as to even definitively say victims exist, qualifying the term with "alleged."
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 11, 2011, 02:54:03 PM
This is true. I don't believe any of the protestors were carrying around cardboard cut-outs of the ousted University President or were crying in the streets outside his house.
Spanier didn't win any national championships.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.
That does not appear to be the tone of the complaints. So far, most of what is written isn't 'the Grand Jury was wrong' but 'our guy may have made a mistake but he's really a great guy'.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/joepa_love_fueled_riot_fires_vxT8UYmQ4yxPDyyiiO6SaJ?utm_campaign=Post10&utm_source=Post10Alpha
Quote
No one denies Paterno could have done more dealing with the horrible tragedy that occurred under his watch. But students were mostly annoyed with how the administration handled Paterno's firing.
It's the equivalent of, instead of the little boy plaintively stating "say in ain't so, Joe" over the "Black Sox' scandal, he torched a cop car in anger over Joe being fired. It's an express toleration of criminal behaviour if someone is prominent enough.
What a curious example you chose regarding Shoeless Joe Jackson. In baseball circles a century later there is still extensive debate whether his treatment was just, even though most believe he had some type of knowledge.
Here, I think there is a sense that the administration could have done more, but who knew what, and when, hasn't been established, so the extent of any personal failures by Paterno haven't either. Hell, I could be wrong, but I don't think the Board of Trustees was willing to go so far as to even definitively say victims exist, qualifying the term with "alleged."
Fuck Joe, what about Swede?
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:34:14 PM
fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much.
That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2011, 02:57:31 PM
Fuck Joe, what about Swede?
Nobody cares about Swede. If he wanted to be cared about, he should have gotten a cool nickname, like Shoeless. And been better at baseball.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:34:14 PM
fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much.
That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.
McQ testified to the Grand Jury that he told P. that he saw S. anally raping a boy.
Either he's lying, or P. is ... and the Grand Jury has stated it found McQ's testimony "credible".
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.
Again I ask why did Paterno inform Sadusky he was no longer DC in 1999 then? For no reason at all? It certainly was not because he was not one of the top DCs in football because he was.
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2011, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2011, 02:17:22 PM
Are there allegations that Paterno covered up for a child rapist? The Board of Regents said they fired him because they wanted the university to begin to move forward from the charges alleged against other officials, and Paterno was part of the situation they wanted to leave behind (because he clearly had the power and duty to report what he knew to the police). If they were lying, and really fired him because someone was alleging that he engaged in a coverup, how do you know, when no one else seems to?
Mind you, I don't get the rioting myself, but I certainly don't think the rioters were aware (any more than I am) that there were actual allegations that Paterno covered up for a rapist. Their anger appeared to be directed at the board that fired him and the reasons the board claims motivated them to do so. Paterno was retiring after this season, the protestors argued, and to fire him three games from retirement seemed unjust to them (and motivated by some weird media conspiracy thingy, but that's another issue).
It is the reversal of the normal order of priorities here that is so very unpleasant. You can create all the semantic weasling you want, but fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much. Neither did anyone else. In this situation, heads rolling is to be expected.
I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that you don't know who has alleged that JoPa "covered up for a child rapist", or that you do? So far, this sounds like a weasel to get out of a fabrication on your part.
QuoteYou can say he's not "alleged" to have "covered up for a child rapist" (whatever you may mean by that) but surely the thing speaks for itself.
You say that he is alleged to have "covered up for a child rapist." That has a specific meaning. If you are going to weasel out ofthe accusation by claiming that you didn't mean "alleged' and didn't mean "covered up" but rather meant something else that doesn't have to be articulated because "it speaks for itself," then the weasel is noted and accepted. You are obviously over-wrought for some reason when it comes to this topic, and seem to have lost all capacity for objective comment on the case, so I will ignore all you say from this point forward, for your sake.
QuoteHe *knew* his friend was raping kids and for *years* he did *nothing*. Sure, he wasn't charged. But surely to Christ the reasons for his firing are no mystery, and if he was pretty well anyone else in this situation, there wouldn't be any controversy.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever, Jesus. As far as I know, the only controversy here regards the extent of Paterno's actually knowledge. Your dogmatic insistence that you know the answer to this controversy is most extremely unpersuasive.
Yes, accusing me repeatedly of lying and lacking self-respect is a great demonstration of objectivity on your part.
Know what? It isn't worth it. Please feel free to ignore me, and I will return the favour.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 03:09:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:34:14 PM
fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much.
That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.
McQ testified to the Grand Jury that he told P. that he saw S. anally raping a boy.
Either he's lying, or P. is ... and the Grand Jury has stated it found McQ's testimony "credible".
And apparently there was also credibility in paternos testimony. And paternos version is corroborated by 2 others.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 03:11:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.
Again I ask why did Paterno inform Sadusky he was no longer DC in 1999 then? For no reason at all? It certainly was not because he was not one of the top DCs in football because he was.
The grand jury found he resigned to take advantage of a state retirement package and that he was told he wouldn't be hc. Not saying there isn't more to it, but if you take the board of trustees at face value they don't either.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 03:17:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 03:09:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 02:34:14 PM
fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much.
That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.
McQ testified to the Grand Jury that he told P. that he saw S. anally raping a boy.
Either he's lying, or P. is ... and the Grand Jury has stated it found McQ's testimony "credible".
And apparently there was also credibility in paternos testimony. And paternos version is corroborated by 2 others.
The Grand Jury was silent on P., and as for the two others (I assume you mean Curley and Schultz), it has found their testimony not credible (see bottom of page 11) and, in fact, has alleged they committed perjury on this very point - i.e., whether they knew S. was buggering boys because McQ
told them (see p. 12).
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
Having your version "corroborated" by two guys who are credibly charged with perjury on the point is not "corroboration" in the sense of 'makes his version more credible'. It tends to have the opposite effect, because if Curley and Schultz were lying, then clearly so is P.
In any event, even if you assume P. told the truth, he's still in the shit. P.'s own testimony to the grand jury was that McQ. "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy" (p. 7). At night. In the Penn State locker room.
Even if you assume that P. knew nothing about any other incident, including the 1998 police investigation, how is that not enough to warrant a call to the police under any reasonable standard?
Remember that even after this incident, S. had an office in the Lasch Building ...
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 03:31:42 PM
The Grand Jury was silent on P., and as for the two others (I assume you mean Curley and Schultz), it has found their testimony not credible (see bottom of page 11) and, in fact, has alleged they committed perjury on this very point - i.e., whether they knew S. was buggering boys because McQ told them (see p. 12).
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
Having your version "corroborated" by two guys who are credibly charged with perjury on the point is not "corroboration" in the sense of 'makes his version more credible'. It tends to have the opposite effect, because if Curley and Schultz were lying, then clearly so is P.
I was stretching a bit to say that there was credibility in Paterno's testimony, but he wasn't charged with perjury, which sense they were passing out perjury charges to others does find some credibility. And having 3 guys give one version of the story on this point vs. 1 guy with another version--even if the grand jury says that guy is credible, does raise doubts.
It is a bit shaky to terminate someone just on that, imo, especially after 60+ years of employment.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 03:31:42 PM
The Grand Jury was silent on P., and as for the two others (I assume you mean Curley and Schultz), it has found their testimony not credible (see bottom of page 11) and, in fact, has alleged they committed perjury on this very point - i.e., whether they knew S. was buggering boys because McQ told them (see p. 12).
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
Having your version "corroborated" by two guys who are credibly charged with perjury on the point is not "corroboration" in the sense of 'makes his version more credible'. It tends to have the opposite effect, because if Curley and Schultz were lying, then clearly so is P.
I was stretching a bit to say that there was credibility in Paterno's testimony, but he wasn't charged with perjury, which sense they were passing out perjury charges to others does find some credibility. And having 3 guys give one version of the story on this point vs. 1 guy with another version--even if the grand jury says that guy is credible, does raise doubts.
It is a bit shaky to terminate someone just on that, imo, especially after 60+ years of employment.
Well, yeah, I think he should have been charged as well. That's a real unfairness.
Though I pointed out in my edit, even if you accept his testimony, his firing was still justified.
If a grad student comes to you and claims your buddy was in a compromising position with a kid, I suppose you could claim in your defense that you disbelieved him, that the accusation wasn't credible enough to go to the cops ... but the evidence tends to show they *did* believe him. They kept McQ on staff (surely someone who lied about something like that would be fired?), they took away S.'s key ti the shower ... but did not call the cops.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 03:49:16 PM
Well, yeah, I think he should have been charged as well. That's a real unfairness.
Though I pointed out in my edit, even if you accept his testimony, his firing was still justified.
If a grad student comes to you and claims your buddy was in a compromising position with a kid, I suppose you could claim in your defense that you disbelieved him, that the accusation wasn't credible enough to go to the cops ... but the evidence tends to show they *did* believe him. They kept McQ on staff (surely someone who lied about something like that would be fired?), they took away S.'s key ti the shower ... but did not call the cops.
Shockingly we are going over the same ground as has been gone through previously, but though CC disagreed I can imagine a scenario. McQ says he saw Sandusky in the shower with a kid, and felt it was inappropriate, Paterno reports up the chain of command but doesn't have an indication to think that was necessarily outrageous.
CC had the point that a 10 year old should never be in a shower with an adult, depending on the situation I'm not sure how awful that would be (open showers in an athletic facility after presumably working out). Paterno kicks it up the chain because he wants to follow due diligence and takes away Sandusky's shower privledges to be safe, but isn't necessarily concerned.
I'm not saying this happened like this, but I would think the board would look into this before terminating someone. I don't think the grand jury testimony justifies termination without any further work.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 03:49:16 PM
Well, yeah, I think he should have been charged as well.
Charged with what?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 03:58:18 PM
I'm not saying this happened like this, but I would think the board would look into this before terminating someone. I don't think the grand jury testimony justifies termination without any further work.
Tim thinks you are 7 and a half times worse than Hitler, and he will never speak to you again.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 03:21:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 03:11:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.
Again I ask why did Paterno inform Sadusky he was no longer DC in 1999 then? For no reason at all? It certainly was not because he was not one of the top DCs in football because he was.
The grand jury found he resigned to take advantage of a state retirement package and that he was told he wouldn't be hc. Not saying there isn't more to it, but if you take the board of trustees at face value they don't either.
Wait what? One of the victims recalled how upset Sandusky was after the meeting where Joe told him he was being "retired", and Jerry told the victim not to tell anybody about it. Did Joe tell Jerry he was not eligible for the premium retirement package and Sandusky didn't want the shame of a subpar retirement package to spread?
I mean how gullible is a Board of Trustees supposed to be? I am not claiming they need to take Paterno out and shoot him but he at least needed to be let go. Besides it is not like Paterno has to go looking for another job, he is 84 years old and had delegated most of the grunt work of being a HC out years ago.
Quote from: PDH on November 11, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 03:58:18 PM
I'm not saying this happened like this, but I would think the board would look into this before terminating someone. I don't think the grand jury testimony justifies termination without any further work.
Tim thinks you are 7 and a half times worse than Hitler, and he will never speak to you again.
Nope. Completely different from Yi's pedo apologism.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2011, 04:02:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 03:49:16 PM
Well, yeah, I think he should have been charged as well.
Charged with what?
Heh good point. If the Grand Jury Indictment is all there is, the Grand Jury seemingly never directly asked P. what he remembered McQ had told him - merely what he said to the other two. If that's the case, presumably, P. never lied under oath.
However, it is very difficult to believe that the Grand Jury simply never asked P what McQ had told him, since this was the very heart of the Victim 2 case and goes directly to the guilt of the other 2.
Obviouly, this will come up at their perjury trials and P. will then, presumably, have the choice of either admitting McQ told him that he'd seen S. buggering a boy (as McQ claims), thus strengthening the case that his firing was justified, or claiming McQ did not say that (which is the claim that the other two are alleged to have committed perjury about).
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:24:56 PM
Heh good point. If the Grand Jury Indictment is all there is, the Grand Jury seemingly never directly asked P. what he remembered McQ had told him - merely what he said to the other two. If that's the case, presumably, P. never lied under oath.
However, it is very difficult to believe that the Grand Jury simply never asked P what McQ had told him, since this was the very heart of the Victim 2 case and goes directly to the guilt of the other 2.
Usually the way it works, the GJ doesn't ask anything; only the prosecutor asks questions.
But let's say for the sake of argument, that Paterno testified that he recalled McQ telling him the same thing he conveyed to Curley: that McQ saw sandusky in the showers "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." How is that materially inconistent with McQ's grand jury testimony as reported?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2011, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:24:56 PM
Heh good point. If the Grand Jury Indictment is all there is, the Grand Jury seemingly never directly asked P. what he remembered McQ had told him - merely what he said to the other two. If that's the case, presumably, P. never lied under oath.
However, it is very difficult to believe that the Grand Jury simply never asked P what McQ had told him, since this was the very heart of the Victim 2 case and goes directly to the guilt of the other 2.
Usually the way it works, the GJ doesn't ask anything; only the prosecutor asks questions.
But let's say for the sake of argument, that Paterno testified that he recalled McQ telling him the same thing he conveyed to Curley: that McQ saw sandusky in the showers "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." How is that materially inconistent with McQ's grand jury testimony as reported?
Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that downgrading what McQ had told them perjury for the other two, right?
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:40:18 PM
Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that this amounted to perjury for the other two, right?
Didn't McQ say that Joe Pa cut him off when he was giving the details to him and only described the scene in detail in the later meeting?
This is weird
Quote
The Penn State fallout is having a trickle-down effect on high school football recruiting.
Adam Ah Ching, a senior linebacker at Greer High School, told WYFF News 4's Kim Quintero that he's played football since he was 6 and has his sights set on playing college ball.
"When you're Polynesian, growing up, football is No. 1 in your life," said Ah Ching.
Ranked last year by ESPNU as the 26th linebacker prospect in the country, Ah Ching said he was paid a visit by Penn State's former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky.
"He came to my last spring game going into my senior season. He liked how I moved, laterally, and how gifted I am," said Ah Ching.
Source: http://www.wyff4.com/news/29738465/detail.html#ixzz1dR4u8qFU
Sandusky was recruiting for Penn State last year? I mean even if Jerry didn't have this sex abuse thing over his head that is weird to send a retired coach to do that. Not sure on the actual NCAA rules on that.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 04:41:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:40:18 PM
Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that this amounted to perjury for the other two, right?
Didn't McQ say that Joe Pa cut him off when he was giving the details to him and only described the scene in detail in the later meeting?
Not that I can see. First paragraph, page 7 has the GJ saying McQ went to Joe Pa's house and "reported what he had seen".
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
No mention of being cut off.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:40:18 PM
Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that downgrading what McQ had told them perjury for the other two, right?
There's a bunch of problems here.
First, the GJ didn't find perjury simply because the witnesses "downgraded" what they were told in a colloquial sense. The problem was those guys described what they heard as mere horseplay and thus not putting them on true notice of criminal activity. But what Paterno describes is unequivocally a crime. His testimony is fundamentally inconsistent with theirs and indeed is a key factual baisis formthe perjury charge.
Second, based on the released GJ report, there is consistency between paternos account and the GA. In order to postulate some inconsistency, you have to speculate about the specific testimony. Its a pointless exercise because we don't knowee what was asked or answered specifically. But the fact that the GJ didn't charge is evidence in itself that it probably didn't play out remotely like the scenario you paint above.
If one were to speculate . . . based on McQ's account, I find it unnlikely that under the circumstances, when McQ reported the matter to Paterno that we described the matter in precise and clinical graphic detail. Certainly the GJ report does not suggest so. I also find it unlikely that the prosecutor would have posed the leading question you suggest - since that would essentially be an invitation to set up a conflict between Paterno and his star witness.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 04:15:04 PM
Wait what? One of the victims recalled how upset Sandusky was after the meeting where Joe told him he was being "retired", and Jerry told the victim not to tell anybody about it. Did Joe tell Jerry he was not eligible for the premium retirement package and Sandusky didn't want the shame of a subpar retirement package to spread?
I mean how gullible is a Board of Trustees supposed to be? I am not claiming they need to take Paterno out and shoot him but he at least needed to be let go. Besides it is not like Paterno has to go looking for another job, he is 84 years old and had delegated most of the grunt work of being a HC out years ago.
Valmy, go through the testimony again. Sandusky was supposedly upset because Paterno said he wasn't going to be the future head coach, and he retired shortly after that.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:50:14 PM
Not that I can see. First paragraph, page 7 has the GJ saying McQ went to Joe Pa's house and "reported what he had seen".
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
No mention of being cut off.
Re-read it and you are right. I must have misremembered.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2011, 05:15:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:40:18 PM
Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that downgrading what McQ had told them perjury for the other two, right?
There's a bunch of problems here.
First, the GJ didn't find perjury simply because the witnesses "downgraded" what they were told in a colloquial sense. The problem was those guys described what they heard as mere horseplay and thus not putting them on true notice of criminal activity. But what Paterno describes is unequivocally a crime. His testimony is fundamentally inconsistent with theirs and indeed is a key factual baisis formthe perjury charge.
Second, based on the released GJ report, there is consistency between paternos account and the GA. In order to postulate some inconsistency, you have to speculate about the specific testimony. Its a pointless exercise because we don't knowee what was asked or answered specifically. But the fact that the GJ didn't charge is evidence in itself that it probably didn't play out remotely like the scenario you paint above.
If one were to speculate . . . based on McQ's account, I find it unnlikely that under the circumstances, when McQ reported the matter to Paterno that we described the matter in precise and clinical graphic detail. Certainly the GJ report does not suggest so. I also find it unlikely that the prosecutor would have posed the leading question you suggest - since that would essentially be an invitation to set up a conflict between Paterno and his star witness.
There is not really any "speculation" involved. The GJ states that McQ told P "what he had seen" - the very words used on p. 7. I can't imagine this being any less than what he testified to the GJ as having seen. There is nothing in the evidence to conclude, as your speculation does, that "what he had seen" was something other than what was reported.
In fact, if I may speculate in turn, that would beggar belief. If someone came to me and told me he was an eyewitness to my friend of many years "engaged in something of a sexual nature" with a young boy (and assuming I was not being a lawyer ;) ), what's the natural human response? "ARE YOU SURE it wasn't something innocent? ARE YOU SURE you were not mistaken?" to which the obvious answer is "yes, because I saw ... ". Certainly, we know McQ had no hesitation over later describing to the other two explicitly what he saw. Why do you think he would have pussyfooted around the matter earlier?
The fact is that both P. and the other two were consistent in a sense - they both chose to downplay the seriousness of what they had been told. In both cases, even if you believe their testimony, they were "on notice" to investigate - obviously, P more than the other two, which simply strengthens the case for P. being fired, as *even if you believe* he was "not told the full extent of it" (which, as I said, is really hard to believe and nothing in the material suggests it) he was on notice to do something about it, such as report to the police, which he failed to do.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 05:26:38 PM
Valmy, go through the testimony again. Sandusky was supposedly upset because Paterno said he wasn't going to be the future head coach, and he retired shortly after that.
Yes I read it. Um how that contradict what I have been saying? Paterno just boots him to the curb for no reason following an investigation into Sandusky for child molestation? Just coincidentally?
I thought you said Sandusky did it on his own for the retirement benefits.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:50:14 PM
Not that I can see. First paragraph, page 7 has the GJ saying McQ went to Joe Pa's house and "reported what he had seen".
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
No mention of being cut off.
It isn't explicit that he told him the full details. It is explicit he told the full details at a later meeting, but also explicit that Paterno was not there.
The Board of Trustees said at their conference that they were only relying on the grand jury report and other publicly available information. Taking them at their word, they did not have conclusive evidence that Joe Paterno knew of any other incident or that the incident he knew about involved something as serious as is alleged.
If they had a more convincing case to terminate (and really, it shouldn't take too much investigation to come up with one), they should have presented it. What do you think would have caused greater harm to the image of the school:
a) Making a statement that they are gravely concerned about the reports and will thoroughly investigate them, but before the investigation results are in they can not terminate employees and thus Paterno can continue coaching with his status being evaluated day to day basis, or
b) Firing Paterno and having the students riot.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 05:42:15 PM
a) Making a statement that they are gravely concerned about the reports and will thoroughly investigate them, but before the investigation results are in they can not terminate employees and thus Paterno can continue coaching with his status being evaluated day to day basis, or
b) Firing Paterno and having the students riot.
Um surely even if they decided not to terminate him they would have put him on administrative leave pending an investigation.
But from what I have read people support the Paterno firing and condemn the students. So I am not sure how it hurts the image of the school.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 05:39:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 05:26:38 PM
Valmy, go through the testimony again. Sandusky was supposedly upset because Paterno said he wasn't going to be the future head coach, and he retired shortly after that.
Yes I read it. Um how that contradict what I have been saying? Paterno just boots him to the curb for no reason following an investigation into Sandusky for child molestation? Just coincidentally?
Maybe. If I was on the board that would be a question I'd want to ask. Crazier coincidences have happened. Maybe Paterno decided he wanted to coach until he died of old age and one way of securing his position was to decapitate potential successors.
We are talking about the potential of guys to be ruthless enough to cover up serial child rape, surely Paterno may be that ruthless.
QuoteI thought you said Sandusky did it on his own for the retirement benefits.
I thought I read that in the report. Going back through there I didn't see it. Maybe I read it somewhere else, maybe I just got confused.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 05:46:54 PM
I thought I read that in the report. Going back through there I didn't see it. Maybe I read it somewhere else, maybe I just got confused.
No worries I just did the same thing. Lots of stuff going around about this thing.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 05:45:14 PM
Um surely even if they decided not to terminate him they would have put him on administrative leave pending an investigation.
But from what I have read people support the Paterno firing and condemn the students. So I am not sure how it hurts the image of the school.
Fine, then administrative leave (although really, it isn't as though there is much harm in letting him keep going--it isn't likely he is covering up other child rapists).
I'd think the image of the school is more about the quality and character of the student body rather than the board of trustees.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 05:46:54 PM
Maybe. If I was on the board that would be a question I'd want to ask. Crazier coincidences have happened. Maybe Paterno decided he wanted to coach until he died of old age and one way of securing his position was to decapitate potential successors.
We are talking about the potential of guys to be ruthless enough to cover up serial child rape, surely Paterno may be that ruthless.
Well I would hope that, at the time Paterno and company thought Jerry had just made a mistake, after all he was not actually charged with anything, but felt he could not be head coach and it just snowballed from there.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 05:49:31 PM
Fine, then administrative leave (although really, it isn't as though there is much harm in letting him keep going--it isn't likely he is covering up other child rapists).
I'd think the image of the school is more about the quality and character of the student body rather than the board of trustees.
Well the image of what happens on Saturday has to be considered as well. A really ugly or overwhelmingly supportive response by 100,000 Penn State fans when Paterno runs out there would have been very damaging. And then there is Paterno and McQueary going through Columbus, Ohio next week...
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 06:07:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2011, 05:55:50 PM
Sandusky, on the other hand, should be anally raped daily for the rest of his life. Period.
Why?
Meri likes to use a strap-on, but Max is hesitant to let her use it on him.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well I would hope that, at the time Paterno and company thought Jerry had just made a mistake, after all he was not actually charged with anything, but felt he could not be head coach and it just snowballed from there.
I'm arguing a rather unlikely point of view, but it is one based on the fact that the Board stated that it was relying on publicly available information and the grand jury testimony, and was qualifying remarks with "alleged." So if you take that at face value, the Board didn't conclusively know that Paterno knew about the 1998 incident.
An impromptu nighttime press conference where the Board states that the allegations are serious, their thoughts go out to the "alleged" victims (can't determine conclusively if there were in fact victims), that they are not rushing to judgment on anything that may or may not have occured, but oh yeah by the way we are firing a 61 year employee based soley on information in the media--it causes you to question whether they just want to fire the guy because the CNN trucks parked out front 24 hours a day have people saying that is what the Board needs to do rather than as a result of a deliberative process. Which in turn causes the people who love that employee to be a very upset.
I realize taking a couple of days to get more info might cause some agnst in the media, but that is probably better than a riot. If they had more info, giving it out might have legal ramifications, but at this point they are going to be sued anyway. When you ask the state to bailout your school for massive lawsuits, what is the difference if you are asking for $50 mill or $55 mill?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 06:07:07 PM
When you ask the state to bailout your school for massive lawsuits, what is the difference if you are asking for $50 mill or $55 mill?
Uh! Uh! I know that one! It's $5 million.
:P
Has Martinus posted about the injustice of this thread? He's posted several times in previous threads that important people shouldn't be held to the same standard as normal folks.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 05:42:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:50:14 PM
Not that I can see. First paragraph, page 7 has the GJ saying McQ went to Joe Pa's house and "reported what he had seen".
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
No mention of being cut off.
It isn't explicit that he told him the full details. It is explicit he told the full details at a later meeting, but also explicit that Paterno was not there.
The Board of Trustees said at their conference that they were only relying on the grand jury report and other publicly available information. Taking them at their word, they did not have conclusive evidence that Joe Paterno knew of any other incident or that the incident he knew about involved something as serious as is alleged.
If they had a more convincing case to terminate (and really, it shouldn't take too much investigation to come up with one), they should have presented it. What do you think would have caused greater harm to the image of the school:
a) Making a statement that they are gravely concerned about the reports and will thoroughly investigate them, but before the investigation results are in they can not terminate employees and thus Paterno can continue coaching with his status being evaluated day to day basis, or
b) Firing Paterno and having the students riot.
Well, yeah, I'm not saying that investigating further would have hurt, but there was clearly enough in the indictment for a reasonable person to conclude firing P was justified. Even according to what he alleged to have told others, he'd been told enough to trigger a duty to inquire.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2011, 06:18:13 PM
Has Martinus posted about the injustice of this thread? He's posted several times in previous threads that important people shouldn't be held to the same standard as normal folks.
In Europe, it is Directors of Arty movies who can do no wrong. In America, it is football heros. ;)
McQueary has been put on administrative leave.
Quote from: Caliga on November 11, 2011, 08:07:36 PM
McQueary has been put on administrative leave.
And he supposedly left State College. That is good he needs to be protected and lay low for awhile.
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2011/11/mcqueary_tells_psu_wideouts_he.html
QuotePenn State's deposed receivers coach Mike McQueary, today placed on what the school called "administrative leave," moments ago told his receivers on a brief conference call that he was in "protective custody" at a secluded location not in State College.
McQueary, witness to the alleged sexual assault of a 10-year-old boy in 2002 by Jerry Sandusky, has been the subject of physical threats. He is the key subject in further investigation into the scandal and potentially could be the single most important trial witness.
On Friday afternoon, according to two team sources, new receivers coach Kermit Buggs gathered his players in a room at the PSU football complex and allowed them to talk with McQueary on a speaker phone.
During a brief and emotional conversation, McQueary told them, "I wanted to let you guys know I'm not your coach anymore. I'm done."
When players asked, "Coach, where are you? Can we see you?" McQueary responded, "No, I'm actually in protective custody. I'm not in State College."
However, several hours later, Sports Information Director Jeff Nelson said that McQueary was not in protective custody - that his characterization was not true.
It was decided by school officials yesterday that McQueary would not coach in Saturday's game against Nebraska after he received threats.
McQueary, 37, has been a full-time coach at PSU since 2004, specializing as the receivers coach and recruiting coordinator. He was the Nittany Lions' starting quarterback in 1997. He is married with a 2-year-old daughter.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 04:40:18 PM
There is not really any "speculation" involved. The GJ states that McQ told P "what he had seen" - the very words used on p. 7. I can't imagine this being any less than what he testified to the GJ as having seen.
I think that says more about your imagination than the actual facts here. ;) The GJ report is quite explicit and specific about most of the witness statements, reporting the words that actually said. Except here. When it comes to the point of exactly what McQ told P, the report doesn't report the words said -- ie M told P he saw Sandusky anally raping a boy. Instead it suddenly becomes indirect -- it doesn't say anything at all other than the indirect M told P "what he had seen". Your imagination is filling in the rest.
QuoteIf someone came to me and told me he was an eyewitness to my friend of many years "engaged in something of a sexual nature" with a young boy (and assuming I was not being a lawyer ;) ), what's the natural human response? "ARE YOU SURE it wasn't something innocent? ARE YOU SURE you were not mistaken?" to which the obvious answer is "yes, because I saw
This scenario makes sense under the condition stated -- someone coming to you.
But that's not what happened. Instead, it was a young GA coming to 75 year old man he looked to as a grandfather figure. Personally it is hard to imagine any circumstance where I would use words like "anal rape" in a conversation with my grandfather, much less "assfuck". There is good reason to think the conversation didn't play out exactly how you think it might have had you been the other party.
But a bigger problem for your account is that you still don't have a perjury case unless the prosecutor asks your leading question. And it is very unlikely it would happen. The reason the prosecutor needs Paterno as a witness is to bolster McQ's testimony. The last thing they would want to do is pose a question that might suggest a difference in recollection between the two about what was said.
QuoteIn both cases, even if you believe their testimony, they were "on notice" to investigate - obviously, P more than the other two, which simply strengthens the case for P. being fired
Agreed. No question he should have been fired. But criminal charges are another thing entirely.
It sounds like the Attorney General has a different take on the firing, and also a take on Paterno's testimony that seems at odds with Malthus' interpretation:
QuoteJoe Paterno Fired, Others Not: Attorney General's Office Has 'Concern'
Pennsylvania's attorney general has voiced "concern" over Penn State University's firing of legendary football coach Joe Paterno and the treatment of other witnesses and officials involved in a child sexual abuse case.
Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general's office, noted that the two officials charged with perjury and failure to report the abuse are being defended by the university, while Paterno was fired.
"We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony," Hagen-Frederiksen told ABCNews.com, "but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development."
"It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet," he said. "Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-paternos-firing-penn-state-attorney-general-concern/story?id=14925158
If this guy is pressuring the school to drop their support of the two guys that were charged, isn't that a legal landmine for the AG?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 09:05:34 PM
If this guy is pressuring the school to drop their support of the two guys that were charged, isn't that a legal landmine for the AG?
Don't guys like that usually have it written into their contract that the employer will pay their legal fees?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2011, 09:07:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 09:05:34 PM
If this guy is pressuring the school to drop their support of the two guys that were charged, isn't that a legal landmine for the AG?
Don't guys like that usually have it written into their contract that the employer will pay their legal fees?
Probably, but I would hope that Penn State would pick up the legal bills for everyone anyway since this came up in the scope of their employment. I know in some cases, such as the KPMG tax evasion case in particular, judges have tossed them out because of pressure by the prosecutors to get the former employer to stop footing the legal bill.
Yeah, it bugs me that focus is all on Paterno and McQueary, and very little attention is given to those further up the chain who kept it buried. Paterno and McQueary could and should have done more, those above them actively suppressed it and protected Sandusky. That's orders of magnitude worse.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2011, 08:53:39 PM
I think that says more about your imagination than the actual facts here. ;) The GJ report is quite explicit and specific about most of the witness statements, reporting the words that actually said. Except here. When it comes to the point of exactly what McQ told P, the report doesn't report the words said -- ie M told P he saw Sandusky anally raping a boy. Instead it suddenly becomes indirect -- it doesn't say anything at all other than the indirect M told P "what he had seen". Your imagination is filling in the rest.
I'm afraid the "imagination" is on your end. Your account relies on the words "reporting what he had seen" to mean something other than, you know,
what he had seen.
If it was something
less than what he had seen, that would be a key fact in the case - surely worthy of mention. The most obvious meaning is that he reported, truthfully, what he had seen.
Throughout the indictment, McQ is consistent - he tells everyone, his dad, the other two, and McQ, the whole truth. It is the others who pass on increasingly watered-down versions.
In any event, I have no doubt that in the numerous court cases that follow, exactly who said what to whom will be discovered.
QuoteThis scenario makes sense under the condition stated -- someone coming to you.
But that's not what happened. Instead, it was a young GA coming to 75 year old man he looked to as a grandfather figure. Personally it is hard to imagine any circumstance where I would use words like "anal rape" in a conversation with my grandfather, much less "assfuck". There is good reason to think the conversation didn't play out exactly how you think it might have had you been the other party.
And here your imagination really runs riot. :lol:
Do you really think that
delicacy would have prevented this guy from telling the truth about what he had seen?
You are overlooking that he seemingly had no trouble telling his own father.
QuoteBut a bigger problem for your account is that you still don't have a perjury case unless the prosecutor asks your leading question. And it is very unlikely it would happen. The reason the prosecutor needs Paterno as a witness is to bolster McQ's testimony. The last thing they would want to do is pose a question that might suggest a difference in recollection between the two about what was said.
I already said that, on the account in the Indictment, there is no perjury charge.
The prosecutor does not need McQ to bolster McQ's testimony - he already has on record P. saying McQ told him something of a sexual nature went down. What more does he need?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 09:05:34 PM
It sounds like the Attorney General has a different take on the firing, and also a take on Paterno's testimony that seems at odds with Malthus' interpretation:
QuoteJoe Paterno Fired, Others Not: Attorney General's Office Has 'Concern'
Pennsylvania's attorney general has voiced "concern" over Penn State University's firing of legendary football coach Joe Paterno and the treatment of other witnesses and officials involved in a child sexual abuse case.
Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general's office, noted that the two officials charged with perjury and failure to report the abuse are being defended by the university, while Paterno was fired.
"We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony," Hagen-Frederiksen told ABCNews.com, "but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development."
"It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet," he said. "Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-paternos-firing-penn-state-attorney-general-concern/story?id=14925158
If this guy is pressuring the school to drop their support of the two guys that were charged, isn't that a legal landmine for the AG?
How is this at odds with anything I've said?
If the school fired P and kept on the other two, that is indeed bizzare.
How could he step into stop that, but not step up and help the child :wacko:
Edit: Alternately how horrible must have been what he saw to send him running. :bleeding:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html
Quote
McQueary is a guy who once stepped in and broke up a player-related knife fight in a campus dining hall — a fight police admit could have been very ugly. But this week, he is getting blasted by the public for doing too little.
The difference may be that he knew Sandusky very well...
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 11:55:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2011, 08:53:39 PM
I think that says more about your imagination than the actual facts here. ;) The GJ report is quite explicit and specific about most of the witness statements, reporting the words that actually said. Except here. When it comes to the point of exactly what McQ told P, the report doesn't report the words said -- ie M told P he saw Sandusky anally raping a boy. Instead it suddenly becomes indirect -- it doesn't say anything at all other than the indirect M told P "what he had seen". Your imagination is filling in the rest.
I'm afraid the "imagination" is on your end. Your account relies on the words "reporting what he had seen" to mean something other than, you know, what he had seen.
If it was something less than what he had seen, that would be a key fact in the case - surely worthy of mention. The most obvious meaning is that he reported, truthfully, what he had seen.
It would seem to me that exactly how he worded things when talking to Paterno is a fairly important point in the issue that you and Minsky are debating. And neither you nor Minsky have any idea how McQueary worded things when he told Paterno "what he had seen". It could have been very graphic and specific, or it could have been very vague. We don't know. The difference here is that while Minsky admits that he is speculating about how McQueary might have worded it, you're claiming to know, which, unless you somehow have inside information that isn't in the grand jury summary, you don't.
Been hearing all the news from a Penn St graduate of the School of sports journalism...utter chaos.
Quote from: frunk on November 11, 2011, 10:22:55 PM
Yeah, it bugs me that focus is all on Paterno and McQueary, and very little attention is given to those further up the chain who kept it buried. Paterno and McQueary could and should have done more, those above them actively suppressed it and protected Sandusky. That's orders of magnitude worse.
I see things differently. The appropriate response is to go to the cops. Anyone can do that. There isn't any real need for an investigation beyond the police investigation. Anyone is capable of going to the cops--and I'd put more of an expectation to go to the cops on the person who saw the incident rather than those who heard about it second hand.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 11:56:25 PM
How is this at odds with anything I've said?
If the school fired P and kept on the other two, that is indeed bizzare.
Going back through what you wrote, it isn't directly at odds. But I think the quote below puts the testimony in a different light than how you were looking at it--it is an affirmative statement of cooperation and honesty that goes beyond the possibility more information wasn't given about his testimony because they just didnt' feel there was enough there for a perjury charge. It raises the possibility that the GA was discreet when he informed Paterno.
"We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony,"
Quote from: alfred russel on November 12, 2011, 08:49:27 AM
I see things differently. The appropriate response is to go to the cops. Anyone can do that. There isn't any real need for an investigation beyond the police investigation. Anyone is capable of going to the cops--and I'd put more of an expectation to go to the cops on the person who saw the incident rather than those who heard about it second hand.
Anybody involved could have gone to the cops, the administration was just as capable of that as Paterno or McQueary. The fact that the administration didn't, barely gave the guy a slap on the wrist, told McQueary that it was being handled and didn't do anything further is tantamount to saying they approve of Sandusky's actions. At the very least they knew there had been allegations before, something that McQueary may not have been aware of (Paterno, not so sure). The signs that this guy was a repeat offender were everywhere and they did nothing about it.
Big campuses like this you don't see the non-campus police ever. Just about everything is handled by the school, it is its own kingdom. Telling Paterno and Paterno telling his boss is roughly equivalent to it being told to the mayor or at least the mayor's staff. It is expected that serious issues are handled by them, and they didn't. I agree Paterno and McQueary should have told the police, but they did something constructive. The lack of responsiveness from the administration in such a horrible situation is monstrous.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 01:26:57 PMTaking sports so seriously you would build statues to heros or riot over them is messed up. Glad to hear that stuff doesn't happen in Canada. :P
There's a couple in the UK to legendary football managers (or players). In the case of Fulham the owner, Mohammed al-Fayad, decided to memorialise his friend by erecting a statue of Michael Jackson outside the stadium:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.metro.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2011%2F04%2F03%2Farticle-1301859919109-0B769A2E00000578-400162_466x559.jpg&hash=e6b6c04967abd758ab8ebee6e4f48f53abd93423)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2011, 11:57:11 PM
How could he step into stop that, but not step up and help the child :wacko:
Because your natural instinct when you see two people having sex is to walk away and leave them too it.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 12, 2011, 08:49:27 AM
Quote from: frunk on November 11, 2011, 10:22:55 PM
Yeah, it bugs me that focus is all on Paterno and McQueary, and very little attention is given to those further up the chain who kept it buried. Paterno and McQueary could and should have done more, those above them actively suppressed it and protected Sandusky. That's orders of magnitude worse.
I see things differently. The appropriate response is to go to the cops. Anyone can do that. There isn't any real need for an investigation beyond the police investigation. Anyone is capable of going to the cops--and I'd put more of an expectation to go to the cops on the person who saw the incident rather than those who heard about it second hand.
Reporting the matter to the police is a no brainer. But but I have a minor disagreement with your statement that there isnt a need for anything further. Normally a University would also conduct an internal investigation of some sort. Criminal investigations can take some time. In cases of alleged sexual assualt Universities have to make decisions regarding keeping people off campus/suspending employment more quickly then the Criminal wheels of justice can turn.
Quote from: Caliga on November 12, 2011, 05:47:47 AM
The difference may be that he knew Sandusky very well...
:pinch:
Good Lord, just give the Football program the death penalty. This kind of mentality has to be cleansed from the Earth with fire.
Follow the link for a photo of the guy and his signs
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/12/penn-state-stadium-profanity-scorn-joe-paterno/?page=1
QuoteAt Penn State's stadium, profanity, scorn greet one father's protest
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — In the middle of Curtin Road, John Matko held one handwritten sign in his right hand and rested another against his jeans. Two inches of black tape obscured Penn State's logo on the 34-year-old father's hat, as he tried to ignore the jeers, slaps and beer hurled at him.
"Put abused kids first," one of Matko's signs read. "Don't be fooled, they all knew. Tom Bradley, everyone must go."
Penn State's Beaver Stadium loomed 30 yards away, rumbling with the first roars of Saturday's game with Nebraska. The sea of blue-clad supporters wearing gray fedoras and camouflage hunting jackets and "This is JoePa's house" T-shirts parted around Matko.
"That is such bull–-!" one young woman screamed at him after glancing at the signs. "Who the f– do you think you are?"
Eyes hidden by blue aviator sunglasses, Matko didn't respond.
The night before, thousands of students held candles and sang Coldplay's "Fix You" a capella in front of Old Main to support victims of sexual abuse. They wanted to show a different side to Penn State than the 40 charges of child sexual abuse against ex-football assistant Jerry Sandusky or the riots late Wednesday after the university fired iconic coach Joe Paterno for his role in the cover-up.
Under Saturday's cloudless sky, Curtin Street revealed something else.
A beer showered Matko. One man slapped his stomach. Another called him a "p–-."
"I understand the culture," said Matko, who graduated from Penn State in 2000 with a degree in nutrition. "I was part of it. It doesn't surprise me what I'm getting from them."
Matko drove three hours from his home in Pittsburgh on Saturday morning. He was tired of reading about what university officials didn't do in the wake of Sandusky's charges. The father of a 4-year-old boy, he couldn't stop thinking about the 23 pages of horror in the grand jury's indictment of Sandusky. Right or wrong, he thought, I've got to do something.
A gust of wind picked up rust-colored leaves, dozens of discarded bookmarks and pamphlets about child sexual abuse and crushed blue cups.
Two-middle aged women wearing "Shuck the Husks" buttons on their blue fleece jackets dispensed the bookmarks nearby. Their sign read: "Penn State pride is about more than football." They wanted to do something, anything to help.
"This is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about," one woman said.
Down the street and to the left, hundreds supporters pressed around the statue of Paterno leading his team from the tunnel. Three bouquets of white roses sat beneath it. Pictures snapped and right index fingers thrust in the air in copies of Paterno's pose.
"We need to rebuild the university," said one man, who leaned against the stone wall with a solemn look. Like many others Saturday, he refused to give his name.
Matko's vigil continued. "The kids are what this day is about, not who wins or loses," the sign resting against his jeans read. "Or who lost their job and why. Honor the abused kids by cancelling the game and the season now."
A passer-by kicked it.
"You're going to get your a— kicked, man," a man bellowed.
"That's bull–-, guy," another said.
Abuse flew at Matko from young and old, students and alumni, men and women. No one intervened. No one spoke out against the abuse. Over the course of an hour, a lone man stopped, read the sign and said, "I agree." Those two words were swallowed by the profanity and threats by dozens of others during the hour.
"The world is here. The world wasn't at the vigil," Matko said. "I still can't believe this game is being played. People are telling me the game is going to generate revenue for the kids. That's the point. We can't separate revenue, money from football. That's part of the reason why we're in this mess.
"I feel so betrayed. ... I can't believe the guys covered it up. It's disturbing and it's not over."
Matko didn't preach at passers-by. The signs said enough, two voices in a wilderness of blue.
"What a f–– idiot, man," shouted one fan. "Get out of here."
A woman, clad in blue like the rest, launched a finger-wagging, tirade inches from Matko's face. Two men led her away.
A burly man wearing a "JoePa" T-shirt strode up, wrestled away the sign urging abused kids be put first from Matko's right hand and slammed it to the ground.
After reading the signs, another woman glowered at Matko.
"This is in bad taste," she said.
One bystander wondered how long until Matko was punched.
From the stadium, the roar of "We are Penn State" washed down the street. Three men with white shirts and ties and rolled-up khakis in Paterno's style hurried past. The sweet smell of kettle korn and smoke from barbecue up the street drifted past two women as they split a 40-ounce bottle of Mickey's Fine Malt Liquor.
Matko adjusted his black backpack, retrieved his signs from the ground each time they were knocked down and stood his ground.
"Not now, man," one student said, shaking his head. "This is about the football players."
Death penalty to a team because the fanbase is full of douchebags? :hmm:
Interesting concept, though I am afraid we will be reduced to watching BYU and the military academies in a perpetual round robin once your orders are carried out.
Pedo State fans are a waste of carbon. Always have been, always will be.
Quote from: sbr on November 12, 2011, 06:02:26 PM
Death penalty to a team because the fanbase is full of douchebags? :hmm:
Interesting concept, though I am afraid we will be reduced to watching BYU and the military academies in a perpetual round robin once your orders are carried out.
Well, it's not like we need more evidence that Tim's a retard.
Wow. That Matko guy is an asshole.
No one takes your trolling seriously Neil. :(
On topic, shouldn't the judge have recused herself? Lawtalkers?
http://deadspin.com/5859075/judge-who-set-unsecured-bail-for-jerry-sandusky-is-a-second-mile-volunteer
Quote
Of course, also according to her profile, Judge Dutchcot is a volunteer for Sandusky's group, The Second Mile. Sandusky turned himself in the morning of November 5, a Saturday, at Judge Dutchot's Centre County office. He was released, under the aforementioned terms, shortly thereafter.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:16:37 PM
No one takes your trolling seriously Neil. :(
You should. 'Think of the children'? I don't take the wailing and gnashing of teeth by whiny little babies who are furious at the idea of other people having fun seriously.
Quote from: sbr on November 12, 2011, 06:02:26 PM
Death penalty to a team because the fanbase is full of douchebags? :hmm:
Interesting concept, though I am afraid we will be reduced to watching BYU and the military academies in a perpetual round robin once your orders are carried out.
Sorry, BYU fanbase has more than their share of douchebags. It would be the academies...maybe some team like Colgate too...
Quote from: Neil on November 13, 2011, 05:18:51 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:16:37 PM
No one takes your trolling seriously Neil. :(
You should. 'Think of the children'? I don't take the wailing and gnashing of teeth by whiny little babies who are furious at the idea of other people having fun seriously.
Ok, I'll pretend to take you seriously for the sake of this discussion. It's true "Think of the children" jeremiads are almost always fallacious. They are usually aimed against phenomena like rock n' roll and video games that have no proven detrimental effect on children. How ever in this case we're talking about the anal rape and sexual abuse of children. Do you want to be the one who goes out and claims that isn't a big deal?
You probably will just to keep the internet nihilist facade going but you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:29:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 13, 2011, 05:18:51 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:16:37 PM
No one takes your trolling seriously Neil. :(
You should. 'Think of the children'? I don't take the wailing and gnashing of teeth by whiny little babies who are furious at the idea of other people having fun seriously.
Ok, I'll pretend to take you seriously for the sake of this discussion. It's true "Think of the children" jeremiads are almost always fallacious. They are usually aimed against phenomena like rock n' roll and video games that have no proven detrimental effect on children. How ever in this case we're talking about the anal rape and sexual abuse of children. Do you want to be the one who goes out and claims that isn't a big deal?
You probably will just to keep the internet nihilist facade going but you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone.
It's unfortunate that it happened, but to cancel a football season? That's just fucking stupid.
Quote from: Neil on November 13, 2011, 05:44:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:29:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 13, 2011, 05:18:51 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:16:37 PM
No one takes your trolling seriously Neil. :(
You should. 'Think of the children'? I don't take the wailing and gnashing of teeth by whiny little babies who are furious at the idea of other people having fun seriously.
Ok, I'll pretend to take you seriously for the sake of this discussion. It's true "Think of the children" jeremiads are almost always fallacious. They are usually aimed against phenomena like rock n' roll and video games that have no proven detrimental effect on children. How ever in this case we're talking about the anal rape and sexual abuse of children. Do you want to be the one who goes out and claims that isn't a big deal?
You probably will just to keep the internet nihilist facade going but you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone.
It's unfortunate that it happened, but to cancel a football season? That's just fucking stupid.
Especially since this had nothing directly to do with the football team. The players aren't accused of any wrongdoing whatsoever, and Sandusky was no longer a coach at the time.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 08:55:15 AM
More likely they don't want him coaching on TV because of the bad publicity, but can't fire him because he somehow qualifies as a whistleblower.
Not really a whistleblower, no. More like a failure to report a crime witnessed. Whether or not Pennsylvania can charge him for that, I dunno. But he's definitely no fucking whistleblower.
Quote from: Neil on November 11, 2011, 11:30:46 AM
Colleges are more of larger city phenomena in Canada. I can't think of a single example of a small town with a huge university the way they do it in the US.
That's because you didn't have a President Lincoln that created the land grant for states to establish their state universities.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2011, 06:52:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 11, 2011, 11:30:46 AM
Colleges are more of larger city phenomena in Canada. I can't think of a single example of a small town with a huge university the way they do it in the US.
That's because you didn't have a President Lincoln that created the land grant for states to establish their state universities.
At least out west, the universities were established during the modern era, when the population centres were more or less fixed. And by the provincial legislatures, to boot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2011, 06:49:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 11, 2011, 08:55:15 AM
More likely they don't want him coaching on TV because of the bad publicity, but can't fire him because he somehow qualifies as a whistleblower.
Not really a whistleblower, no. More like a failure to report a crime witnessed. Whether or not Pennsylvania can charge him for that, I dunno. But he's definitely no fucking whistleblower.
Not a whistleblower, and not a statutory reporter. He did just what the law said he should do. It would be failure to report a crime witnessed if he had, you know, failed to report it. Penn law can't charge him based on the facts as they are currently known, because he followed the law and university procedures. He didn't raise a stink when it became clear that Sandusky was still walking around a free man, but that is personal failing, not a failure under the law.
I think the reason why PSU isn't firing him is because he has a contract, and the U wants to avoid breaching that. He'll be gone next year, I don't doubt.
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2011, 07:21:41 AM
He did just what the law said he should do. It would be failure to report a crime witnessed if he had, you know, failed to report it.
He did what his Dad said he should do.
I know commonwealth law can be pretty fucked up sometimes, but where in Penn law does it say that reporting a crime witnessed in progress to someone other than law enforcement is still considered a report to the proper authorities?
If he had witnessed a coed rape and wrote to Penthouse Forum instead of the police, does that count as "reporting it" as well?
I thought Joe's title was Head Coach, not Sheriff.
Quote from: sbr on November 12, 2011, 06:02:26 PM
Death penalty to a team because the fanbase is full of douchebags? :hmm:
Interesting concept, though I am afraid we will be reduced to watching BYU and the military academies in a perpetual round robin once your orders are carried out.
fsu's schedule would be reduced to georgia tech, wake forest, and clemson
itd be nice to see the canes and gators go by by though :nelson:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:16:37 PM
No one takes your trolling seriously Neil. :(
On topic, shouldn't the judge have recused herself? Lawtalkers?
http://deadspin.com/5859075/judge-who-set-unsecured-bail-for-jerry-sandusky-is-a-second-mile-volunteer
Quote
Of course, also according to her profile, Judge Dutchcot is a volunteer for Sandusky's group, The Second Mile. Sandusky turned himself in the morning of November 5, a Saturday, at Judge Dutchot's Centre County office. He was released, under the aforementioned terms, shortly thereafter.
the appearance is interesting but we'd need to know a lot more facts than they both volunteer for the same organization to know whether recusal would be appropriate; who knows she may have offered to and both sides may have waived....i see that a lot
it would seem that the bbc has the right idea, but fundamentally misunderstands american football and the ostensible role of our coaches:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc300%2Fsemis33%2Fbbc.png&hash=643dbadb933ae59554649788c6e0700539cd7735)
Quote from: Rasputin on November 14, 2011, 09:46:14 AM
it would seem that the bbc has the right idea, but fundamentally misunderstands american football and the ostensible role of our coaches:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc300%2Fsemis33%2Fbbc.png&hash=643dbadb933ae59554649788c6e0700539cd7735)
:lol:
Either that's a photoshop, or some tech is having a few laughs. ;)
Hmm...I wonder why he lives in a house right next to an elementary school?
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/11/14/Sandusky_house_near_elementary_school.aspx
QuoteSchool takes protective measures
By Christina Gallagher
Collegian Staff Writer
A chain link fence separates Jerry Sandusky's State College home from the school-aged children who attend Lemont Elementary School.
The Lemont Elementary School, 675 Elmwood St., property borders the backyard of Jerry and Dottie Sandusky. According to Google Maps, the two are about two-thirds of a mile apart
Sandusky was indicted one week ago for sexually abusing young boys, and Superintendent of the State College Area School District Bob O'Donnell said the school district has been aware of Sandusky's residence in an issued release.
The school also keeps in close contact with the State College Police Department, he said in the release.
The school principal, Scott DeShong, has also taken administrative action to ensure the safety of children, he said in the release. These actions will remain in place.
O'Donnell said the school district follows established safety protocol and collaborates with the State College Police Department, Ferguson Township Police and Patton Township Police in the release.
Throughout the week, Sandusky's secluded, humble residence has been shielded.
Trash bags and tarps covered two first floor windows that once gave view to a bedroom window with a doll sitting on its ledge.
A carved jack-o-lantern and a potted plant sat to next to the front door. The door's side windows were also covered with paper.
No one answered the door Friday afternoon, but an ADT Home Security truck was in the driveway.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMrjLf.png&hash=5f7a72536c01790701b39a3fdfe6dc5aa41bc6b6)
:nelson:
Paterno's name removed from the B1G Championship trophy.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/11/big-ten-championship-trophy-remove-joe-paterno-stagg/1
Fucker lived right next to the playground
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSgfg6.png&hash=10f1d40f9ba01db8da80ffd45cb33253baa39ff0)
Creepy
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45283472/ns/sports-college_football//
QuoteFormer Penn St. Coach: Sandusky Scandal 'Made Some Sense To Me'
'Enraged' ex-grad assistant, child-abuse victim critical of coach's style, Paterno power
By ETHAN J. SKOLNICK
NBCSports.com contributor
updated 11:32 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2011
The voicemail was left by a buddy from his playing days back at Brown University.
"He made a reference to the Sandusky thing," Matt Paknis says. "I didn't know what he was talking about, but it sounded weird."
The Sandusky thing. By now, America knows it all too well. The Sandusky thing is the indictment of former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky on 40 counts of sexual abuse against eight children, an indictment that already has led to the ousters of university president Graham Spanier and legendary coach Joe Paterno, even though neither has been charged with a crime; to the indefinite leave imposed upon assistant coach and potential star witness Mike McQueary; and to unrest among students on the school's campus.
Sandusky has pleaded innocent to the charges. Paterno released a statement over the weekend, through his son Jay, that he would not have further comment on the situation.
When Paknis, 49, started investigating the Sandusky thing on the Internet, it hit especially close to home.
In two ways: He is a childhood victim of sexual abuse, and a former assistant coach at Penn State, working on the same staff as Sandusky and McQueary under Paterno.
"I was up until 2 in the morning, getting more and more enraged," says Paknis, a Massachusetts resident. "But, on the other hand, it made some sense to me."
Paknis is a management and leadership consultant for high-end companies and enterprises, and his unique perspective has inspired him to speak out not only about sexual abuse but also about the abuse and misuse of power at the highest levels of the university and athletic program, which he blames for allowing an abuser to freely operate.
He has done so on a blog entitled "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely."
"I'm just tired of all these little fiefdoms popping up everywhere, and people hiding in the back office, surrounded by all their henchmen, and doing the wrong things," Paknis told NBCSports.com. "It's got to stop. Someone has to step up. I can't sit back. I'm doing this to help people."
It should be made clear that Paknis did not witness any sexual abuse while at Penn State as a graduate assistant coach in 1987 and 1988, before leaving to pursue a master's degree in architecture at the University of Rhode Island. He did, however, see some things that made him queasy, especially in light of his own background, and especially when it came to Sandusky.
"He was always grabbing the players," Paknis says. "He would get in their space, lean up right against them. I'd also been taught you don't touch anyone unless you are teaching a technique. Boundaries were clearly an issue. It made me feel awkward, the way he would grab or pinch them."
That wasn't all that made him uncomfortable during his short Penn State tenure, which followed a successful playing career on a three-time undefeated state championship high school team before starting at Brown.
Paknis found it "bizarre" that Penn State coaches all showered in the same space, behind a clear Plexiglas perimeter.
"They would talk about plays," he said. "I thought that was maybe old-school or something, so I mentioned that to coaches at other places, and they never did that. That was not for me."
Paknis also was unnerved by some of his interaction with Sandusky, even though none of it was sexual in nature. They didn't spend much time together, but they coached different sides of the ball. Still, Paknis recalls that "he would repeatedly come close to me, and say that he hated Joe. He was never unpleasant to me, but I could not figure out where that was coming from, so I would back off. I didn't want to get into it."
That doesn't mean Paknis was a fan of Paterno's, either.
Penn State lockers were arranged alphabetically, so Paterno and Paknis were next to each other. In reality, however, they were worlds apart. Paterno had just won the national championship, and was the reigning "Sports Illustrated" Sportsman of the Year.
"I was youngest guy on the staff," Paknis says. "I was the lowest man on the totem pole."
At Penn State, he valued his classes, admired much of the staff, liked and respected many of the players.
Paknis didn't think much of the Penn State power structure, or the man at the top, who "wouldn't give you time of day unless you were on his level, or have any interaction with you without it serving him." He saw a system that served as a "kingdom," designed to serve a single person, without checks or balances. He saw a coach who had been able to produce a constructive output on the field, but "underneath, optimized fear."
And he saw a community that bought so completely into the image that "he does things the right way," that his way was rarely questioned.
"Joe is perceived to be a father figure or grandfather figure, and that's a very hard thing for people to get to that realization, that your dad is bad," Paknis says.
That's why Paknis isn't surprised that many former players have spoken out in sympathy toward Paterno since his firing last Wednesday, referencing all the good work he has done for the program and those who have gone through it: "Their whole image is locked into that. That is the way they define themselves. To let go of that, it's very difficult."
That's also why Paknis isn't surprised that many Penn State students have rallied to Paterno's defense as well, even doing so with violence and vandalism:
"I think the students are confused," he says. "They had to act out. They were probably acting out in anger. I'd like to think I wouldn't have acted that way, that I would have sat back and said, 'Wow, if he's getting removed, there's got to be real substance here.'"
Paknis believes that Paterno followed "what was his MO for all those years," and that "when it was time to step up and protect the kids, he protected himself." He also believes that the truth is even worse than what has been reported.
"We know publicly now that he was aware of this when McQueary went to him," Paknis says.
That, according to the grand jury indictment, was 2002, after McQueary allegedly saw Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in a Penn State shower.
Paknis thinks Paterno knew something earlier even than 1999, when Sandusky resigned, one year after one boy — Victim 6 in the indictment — reported an incident to his mother, and it was investigated by university police and the district attorney.
That's because Paknis came to this simple conclusion during his two years in Happy Valley, a conclusion that doesn't change after Paterno aged well past the point of the average working person:
"Joe knows everything."
Feeling personal pain
What Paterno can't know is the pain that Paknis experienced as a child, the pain that makes these news events feel so personal.
"That's what kept me up, because I got triggered," Paknis says. "I figured I had most of my feelings had gone. But we all have a lot of compartments."
He started cursing Sandusky, and anyone involved. He saw himself.
"He picked on kids who didn't have a support structure," Paknis says of Sandusky, who founded the Second Mile charity for at-risk kids only to allegedly prey upon them. "Kids who didn't have the structure in place to make them feel whole and good."
As a boy in Madison, N.J., Paknis experienced a family in crisis. His father was around, but not supportive. His mother was dying of cancer.
A male neighbor took advantage, grooming him, then sexually abusing him.
Paknis was 11. He said nothing, knowing that his family respected the neighbor, and believing he wouldn't be believed. His struggles in school suggested something was wrong, however, so his mother sent him to counseling. Paknis felt comfortable with the counselor and eventually shared his secret.
He never shared it with his mother, who died before he graduated high school. The abuse allegation never got escalated to the legal authorities. His abuser never got exposed, so the loop never got closed, though Paknis was able to confront, threaten and stop him after growing to nearly 200 pounds as an eighth-grader.
"I don't know what happened to him," Paknis said. "I pray he did not go on to prey on other people. I'm pretty sure he had other issues. I don't think he lasted too long."
Paknis persevered. He pushed forward. He tried to put it behind him, with sports playing a role. But, after his mother passed, he started experiencing chronic sleep disruption. That went on for years until, finally, in 1996, after the birth of he and his wife's second of three children, he decided he needed more help.
Paknis has been under professional care for the 15 years since. And he has come forward all the way, something he wasn't ready to do in 1999, when he wrote a letter to his hometown newspaper in response to a Sports Illustrated story about sexual abuse in youth sports — in that letter, he shared the role of sports in "saving his life" without sharing the specific abuse history.
As a consequence of counseling, Paknis says he is a safe place now, a place where he feels free to talk.
Where he feels he can help, even if it requires public speaking.
That's because he knows that others aren't.
That's one of the reasons Paknis is upset about the reaction of some at Penn State to this crisis, and their focus on Paterno as a victim rather than on the kids.
"It will not make it easier," he says. "Not at all. If survivors are in there, they will just blame themselves more."
He saves no sympathy for anyone but them.
Not for Sandusky.
Not for anyone in the Penn State power structure top to bottom, even if that means clearing out people Paknis liked, like Tom Bradley, who was promoted to head coach to replace Paterno.
"The first thing you've got to do is you've got to look at the situation honestly," Paknis says. "Then you have to separate reality from distortions, or your opinions from facts. Someone has to go in there with a lot of credibility, and start putting the mirror up: This is really what was happening, and the behaviors that were really the result of those type of falsehoods and distortions. How do we bring the world back on that kind of axis, so our behaviors and actions are really reflecting the truth? What kind of checks and balances do we have to put in place so no one gets that type of power again? It's just a culture. You've got to clear it. "
Paknis saves no sympathy for McQueary, who is on indefinite leave and reportedly has received threats. And who, Paknis notes, was promoted within a couple of years of his alleged report to Paterno rather than police.
"I hate to throw stones, because I wasn't there," Paknis says. "I would like to like think I would have controlled my rage enough not to kill Jerry. But I would have responded in a physical way, with my main objective to protect the young boy. Taken him to police, and left Jerry incapacitated."
And certainly, he saves none for Paterno, whom he calls a "spin doctor" who believed too much of his own hype.
"It's sort of an empty reaction," Paknis says. "Almost like a pitiful reaction. I wish (his ouster) had happened 10 years ago when he first knew about it. I don't know how much longer he's going to be here. If it is true, I would have enjoyed seeing him receive a minor, tiny fraction of the pain that was felt by these kids. And that would be plenty. You can add all the infractions in the history of the NCAA, and it wouldn't add up to the loss of all these boys' souls."
Ethan J. Skolnick is a sports columnist for The Palm Beach Post.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2011, 11:55:13 PM
I'm afraid the "imagination" is on your end. Your account relies on the words "reporting what he had seen" to mean something other than, you know, what he had seen.
No - my account relies on reading what the report actually said, and not leaping to assumptions about what additionally might have been said.
It could be the case for example, that the question and answer went like this:
Q: What did you tell Mr. Paterno?
A: I told him what I had seen.
That would explain why the GJ report reported the testimony that way. Certainly there were many other places in the report where the testimony is described in more detail.
Now you may argue that it could also be the case that the report in this instance is just summarizing more detailed testimony, but then you have to assume that the more detailed testimony unrolled precisely the way you think it did, but that the GJ report for some reason obfuscated that. And that is where the imagination part comes into play. ;)
QuoteDo you really think that delicacy would have prevented this guy from telling the truth about what he had seen?
You are overlooking that he seemingly had no trouble telling his own father.
We don't know what exact words he used with his father. Careful about jumping to conclusions.
QuoteThe prosecutor does not need McQ to bolster McQ's testimony - he already has on record P. saying McQ told him something of a sexual nature went down. What more does he need?
That is what he needed - Paterno telling the grand jury an account that is more serious than what the charges witnesses.
Otherwise it is just McQ's word against the other guys, with the beloved Paterno casting doubt on McQ's account.
But with Paterno backing the McQ account in its substance, the other guys are as good as buried.
That's why no way the prosecutor ever takes the risk of setting up any possible conflict in accounts between M and P.
This thread is showing me that CdM was always right about Tim.
Quote from: Neil on November 14, 2011, 07:46:55 PM
This thread is showing me that CdM was always right about Tim.
At least there's one good thing resulting from this tragedy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 14, 2011, 07:49:51 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2011, 07:21:41 AM
He did just what the law said he should do. It would be failure to report a crime witnessed if he had, you know, failed to report it.
He did what his Dad said he should do.
I know commonwealth law can be pretty fucked up sometimes, but where in Penn law does it say that reporting a crime witnessed in progress to someone other than law enforcement is still considered a report to the proper authorities?
If he had witnessed a coed rape and wrote to Penthouse Forum instead of the police, does that count as "reporting it" as well?
I thought Joe's title was Head Coach, not Sheriff.
The point it, most people are not legally obligated to report crimes that they have witnessed to the police or other authorities (such as Child Protective Services). Apparantly, under Pennsylvania law in 2002, McQueary wasn't a mandatory reporter.
Anyone see that freak show interview with Bob Costas?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 12:29:01 AM
Anyone see that freak show interview with Bob Costas?
Yeah that was some creepy shit.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 14, 2011, 11:42:32 AM
Hmm...I wonder why he lives in a house right next to an elementary school?
For the same reason he's got 6 adopted children; you don't always want to eat out, sometimes you just want to order in.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 15, 2011, 02:51:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 12:29:01 AM
Anyone see that freak show interview with Bob Costas?
Yeah that was some creepy shit.
Never ceases to amaze me how much people still talk while under indictment and before their trial.
Quote from: Jacob on November 14, 2011, 07:49:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 14, 2011, 07:46:55 PM
This thread is showing me that CdM was always right about Tim.
At least there's one good thing resulting from this tragedy.
The real tragedy of all this is that it didn't happen at Ohio State. I mean, the psycho sweater vest and shortsleeve dress shirts, with the impeccable glasses and weekly haircut? The guy just screams a ritualistic OCD anal-retentive kiddiefucker profile.
Quote from: Jacob on November 14, 2011, 07:49:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 14, 2011, 07:46:55 PM
This thread is showing me that CdM was always right about Tim.
At least there's one good thing resulting from this tragedy.
Yeah
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2011, 07:16:25 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 14, 2011, 07:49:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 14, 2011, 07:46:55 PM
This thread is showing me that CdM was always right about Tim.
At least there's one good thing resulting from this tragedy.
The real tragedy of all this is that it didn't happen at Ohio State. I mean, the psycho sweater vest and shortsleeve dress shirts, with the impeccable glasses and weekly haircut? The guy just screams a ritualistic OCD anal-retentive kiddiefucker profile.
:lol:
I missed you Brotha.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:29:41 PM
No one takes your trolling seriously Neil. :(
QuoteOk, I'll pretend to take you seriously for the sake of this discussion
oops.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2011, 07:10:28 AM
Never ceases to amaze me how much people still talk while under indictment and before their trial.
Kind of terrible to admit, but the first thing I thought when I saw the interview was how his lawyer must be hitting his head against a wall.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:35:16 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2011, 05:29:41 PM
No one takes your trolling seriously Neil. :(
QuoteOk, I'll pretend to take you seriously for the sake of this discussion
oops.
Key word - pretend
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:36:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2011, 07:10:28 AM
Never ceases to amaze me how much people still talk while under indictment and before their trial.
Kind of terrible to admit, but the first thing I thought when I saw the interview was how his lawyer must be hitting his head against a wall.
What is the point of winning a case at trial if you lose public opinion? If the world thinks you are a child rapist then prison might be the safest and best place to live.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 10:58:18 AM
What is the point of winning a case at trial if you lose public opinion? If the world thinks you are a child rapist then prison might be the safest and best place to live.
I think the premise of statement 2 is flawed and public opinion, which was a lost cause before the interview, is more likely to be further swayed against as a result of it, if such a thing is possible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 11:07:45 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 10:58:18 AM
What is the point of winning a case at trial if you lose public opinion? If the world thinks you are a child rapist then prison might be the safest and best place to live.
I think the premise of statement 2 is flawed and public opinion, which was a lost cause before the interview, is more likely to be further swayed against as a result of it, if such a thing is possible.
This guy is screwed, I'll grant you that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:36:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2011, 07:10:28 AM
Never ceases to amaze me how much people still talk while under indictment and before their trial.
Kind of terrible to admit, but the first thing I thought when I saw the interview was how his lawyer must be hitting his head against a wall.
I didn't watch the interview, but apparently his lawyer subsequently appeared on the show as well. So, this was done with his lawyer's knowledge.
Quote from: stjaba on November 15, 2011, 11:15:13 AM
I didn't watch the interview, but apparently his lawyer subsequently appeared on the show as well. So, this was done with his lawyer's knowledge.
I saw a post earlier today over on SA noting that in an interview with Dan Patrick (today, I guess), Costas said he was expecting to talk to the lawyer only, and it was the lawyer who suggested getting Mr. Pedo on the phone.
Now....I'm no lawyer, but....that doesn't seem like the best idea. Especially when your client is too fucking dumb or so hooked on the little kids that he can't outright say "NO" when asked if he is sexually attracted to young boys.
It was all that Dan Marino's fault, everyone knows that. Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell.
the problem is some lawyers can't resist the allure of their own fifteen minutes of fame even at the expense of their client
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2011, 11:25:57 AM
It was all that Dan Marino's fault, everyone knows that. Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell.
marino played for pittsburgh ...a pretty good alibi inmho (even if the timelines dont quite match) :contract:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 15, 2011, 11:17:26 AM
Especially when your client is too fucking dumb or so hooked on the little kids that he can't outright say "NO" when asked if he is sexually attracted to young boys.
Yeah that was uncomfortable.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 11:26:09 AM
the problem is some lawyers can't resist the allure of their own fifteen minutes of fame even at the expense of their client
It doesn't really bother me if pedophiles hire lawyers who don't do a good job representing them.
Quote from: The Minsky MomentQuote from: alfred russelWhat is the point of winning a case at trial if you lose public opinion? If the world thinks you are a child rapist then prison might be the safest and best place to live.
I think the premise of statement 2 is flawed
Unless you want to spend the rest of your life in solitary.
I think there is a time and place for an accused person to take to the media. If you know what your defence is going to be, if your client is prepped and ready to go, then trying to get your own message out into the court of public opinion may be perfectly valid.
However... that sure doesn't sound like what happened here. As mentioned it was the lawyer who was scheduled to talk to Costas, and 15 minutes before the interview, the lawyer suggested maybe Sandusky himself could do the interview.
Sandusky obviously wasn't ready or prepared. Also, they certainly could have pre-arranged an interview with a media outlet willing to set some 'ground rules' for how it would be conducted (though obviously they would insist on some hard questions being asked).
That whole incident leaves me baffled.
WTF...The bit I bolded is pure insanity! :wacko:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/jerry-sandusky-i-seeking-young-person-sexual-helped-article-1.977730
QuoteJerry Sandusky: 'I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped'
More from Ex-Penn State coach interview revealed on 'Today'
BY Teri Thompson
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Originally Published: Tuesday, November 15 2011, 10:06 AM
Updated: Tuesday, November 15 2011, 10:06 AM
Legal experts were shocked Jerry Sandusky's lawyer allowed him to be interviewed by Bob Costas on NBC's "Rock Center" Monday night, pointing out that his words are sure to be used against him in court.
But while Costas's interview was forceful and compelling, the full transcript of what Sandusky said wasn't aired until it appeared Tuesday morning on "Today."
At one point, about seven minutes into the interview and after Costas asked Sandusky about the 40-count indictment he faces for sexually abusing boys over a 15-year period, and Sandusky replies that he is innocent of those charges, Costas asks Sandusky if he fits the classic MO of a pedophile.
Sandusky's reply at the 19:01:01:00 mark of the interview is perhaps the most damning of the entire session:
"Well -- you might think that," Sandusky said. "I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would -- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and -- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."
Here is the full exchange:
BOB COSTAS:
18:58:59:00: "But you're a man who by his own admission has showered with young boys, highly inappropriate. Who has continually put himself in the presence of young boys, volunteer high school coach, volunteer at a small local college, even after -- you were largely disassociated from Penn State. Multiple reports of you getting into bed with young boys who stayed at your house in a room in the basement. How do you account for these things? And if you're not a pedophile, then what are you?"
JERRY SANDUSKY:
18:59:30:00: "Well I'm a person that has taken a strong interest. I'm a very passionate person in terms of trying to make a difference in the lives of some young people. I worked very hard to try to connect with them. To make them feel good about themselves. To -- be something significant in their lives. Maybe this gets misinterpreted, has gotten depending on -- I know a lot of young people where it hasn't. I have worked with many, many young people where there has been no misinterpretation of my actions and I have made a very significant difference in their lives."
BOB COSTAS:
19:00:28:00: "But isn't what you're just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don't necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it's entirely possible that you could've helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn't that possible?"
JERRY SANDUSKY:
19:01:01:00: "Well -- you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would-- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and-- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have-- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."
Costas then asks Sandusky if he is sexually attracted to young boys, the portion of the interview that was shown on "Rock Center."
BOB COSTAS:
19:01:47:00: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?"
"Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?" Sandusky repeats.
"Yes," Costas answers.
"Sexually attracted, you know, I -- I enjoy young people," Sandusky says. "I -- I love to be around them. I -- I -- but no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."
According to New York defense attorney Tom Harvey, who joined a chorus of criminal defense lawyers who found it hard to understand why Sandusky's lawyer, Joseph Amendola, allowed his client to appear on national television, Sandusky's admissions will be costly.
"He admitted he showered with little boys, he admitted he touched little boys' legs, he hugged little boys, he's saying people just made all this other stuff up," said Harvey. "He's just given up his Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate himself. All of that can and will be used against him.
"Why would you put your client on national TV?" Harvey asked. "You'd have to say it certainly deviates from the norm that you would let a criminal defendant talk about his alleged acts on national television. It's hard to believe."
So maybe that wasn't well thought out and didn't go so well. I also read that that Sandusky's lawyer got a 17 year old pregnant when he was pushing 50. So there seems to be a lot of problems here (which seems somewhat odd--I'd figure Sandusky would be media savvy and have the resources for a decent lawyer).
But still, if I was in Sandusky's spot, I'd want to talk to the media asap to get my side of the story out. Public opinion would be as important to me as a legal verdict. Maybe the former is a lost cause (maybe they both are), but I'd want to take that shot.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 01:19:57 PM
WTF...The bit I bolded is pure insanity! :wacko:
Hey, give the guy a break.
He didn't bugger *every* kid in his charity. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 15, 2011, 02:56:16 PM
Hey, give the guy a break.
He didn't bugger *every* kid in his charity. ;)
Can you share your professional experience: is that an effective criminal defense at trial? Now that he has given the interview and shown the his hand, do you think prosecution will be able to counter such a strategy at trial?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 02:53:53 PM
So maybe that wasn't well thought out and didn't go so well. I also read that that Sandusky's lawyer got a 17 year old pregnant when he was pushing 50. So there seems to be a lot of problems here (which seems somewhat odd--I'd figure Sandusky would be media savvy and have the resources for a decent lawyer).
But still, if I was in Sandusky's spot, I'd want to talk to the media asap to get my side of the story out. Public opinion would be as important to me as a legal verdict. Maybe the former is a lost cause (maybe they both are), but I'd want to take that shot.
Public opinion can be important, but it sure as hell isn't as important as a legal verdict. 20 to life when you're in your 60s is pretty damn important thing to avoid.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Public opinion can be important, but it sure as hell isn't as important as a legal verdict. 20 to life when you're in your 60s is pretty damn important thing to avoid.
There was a story that someone threw rocks through his window the other night. If he is going to be under seige the rest of his life, what is the point of avoiding a conviction?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Public opinion can be important, but it sure as hell isn't as important as a legal verdict. 20 to life when you're in your 60s is pretty damn important thing to avoid.
There was a story that someone threw rocks through his window the other night. If he is going to be under seige the rest of his life, what is the point of avoiding a conviction?
Right now he can always choose to move. He can't if he's in jail.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:13:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Public opinion can be important, but it sure as hell isn't as important as a legal verdict. 20 to life when you're in your 60s is pretty damn important thing to avoid.
There was a story that someone threw rocks through his window the other night. If he is going to be under seige the rest of his life, what is the point of avoiding a conviction?
Right now he can always choose to move. He can't if he's in jail.
Where can he move to? He is a national pariah. Short of leaving the country, he is screwed.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:15:30 PM
Where can he move to? He is a national pariah. Short of leaving the country, he is screwed.
You vastly overestimate the attention span of the American Public. It is not like this dude is OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson, few people will remember what he looks like.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Public opinion can be important, but it sure as hell isn't as important as a legal verdict. 20 to life when you're in your 60s is pretty damn important thing to avoid.
There was a story that someone threw rocks through his window the other night. If he is going to be under seige the rest of his life, what is the point of avoiding a conviction?
After that interview he will be lucky if it is just rocks next time.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:13:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Public opinion can be important, but it sure as hell isn't as important as a legal verdict. 20 to life when you're in your 60s is pretty damn important thing to avoid.
There was a story that someone threw rocks through his window the other night. If he is going to be under seige the rest of his life, what is the point of avoiding a conviction?
Right now he can always choose to move. He can't if he's in jail.
Where can he move to? He is a national pariah. Short of leaving the country, he is screwed.
It's "piranha". And no he's not.
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2011, 03:35:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:13:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Public opinion can be important, but it sure as hell isn't as important as a legal verdict. 20 to life when you're in your 60s is pretty damn important thing to avoid.
There was a story that someone threw rocks through his window the other night. If he is going to be under seige the rest of his life, what is the point of avoiding a conviction?
Right now he can always choose to move. He can't if he's in jail.
Where can he move to? He is a national pariah. Short of leaving the country, he is screwed.
It's "piranha". And no he's not.
It may well be "piñata" before this is through.
Piccata?
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2011, 03:40:11 PM
Piccata?
That may be going a bit far - after all, the guy is what, over 50? Too tough.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 02:53:53 PM
So maybe that wasn't well thought out and didn't go so well. I also read that that Sandusky's lawyer got a 17 year old pregnant when he was pushing 50. So there seems to be a lot of problems here (which seems somewhat odd--I'd figure Sandusky would be media savvy and have the resources for a decent lawyer).
But still, if I was in Sandusky's spot, I'd want to talk to the media asap to get my side of the story out. Public opinion would be as important to me as a legal verdict. Maybe the former is a lost cause (maybe they both are), but I'd want to take that shot.
My guess is that Sandusky insisted on doing the interview against the advice of his lawyer.
Is Bob Costas gay?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 03:49:45 PM
Is Bob Costas gay?
Where did that question come from? :unsure:
No, he's on his 2nd wife and has two kids with the first.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2011, 03:22:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:15:30 PM
Where can he move to? He is a national pariah. Short of leaving the country, he is screwed.
You vastly overestimate the attention span of the American Public.
And underestimate how terrible prison is.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:23:52 PM
Where did that question come from? :unsure:
No, he's on his 2nd wife and has two kids with the first.
Timmy, one of the problems with calling a person a useless piece of shit is if you engage in friendly discourse with them, you come across as two-faced, whereas if you object violently to what they post you come across as a stalker.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 15, 2011, 04:24:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2011, 03:22:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 03:15:30 PM
Where can he move to? He is a national pariah. Short of leaving the country, he is screwed.
You vastly overestimate the attention span of the American Public.
And underestimate how terrible prison is.
Or simply have a different appreciation for being able to function as a normal member of society who also isn't in fear of personal attack.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:27:19 PMTimmy, one of the problems with calling a person a useless piece of shit is if you engage in friendly discourse with them, you come across as two-faced, whereas if you object violently to what they post you come across as a stalker.
There are other possibilities as well.
Quote from: Jacob on November 15, 2011, 04:32:01 PM
There are other possibilities as well.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
Or simply have a different appreciation for being able to function as a normal member of society who also isn't in fear of personal attack.
"Not being in fear of personal attack" and "being in prison" don't have a lot in common.... :hmm:
Unless you mean being in solitary confinement? :huh:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 15, 2011, 04:35:24 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
Or simply have a different appreciation for being able to function as a normal member of society who also isn't in fear of personal attack.
"Not being in fear of personal attack" and "being in prison" don't have a lot in common.... :hmm:
Unless you mean being in solitary confinement? :huh:
I assume they can find ways to keep you safe while you are in custody if you are at obvious risk of attack. Maybe that is solitary confinement, but I don't know much about how prison works.
so i'm jogging the other day and listening to a whole bunch of pod casts on international history on the ipod shuffle
to my chagrin mile two is about some dude named "admiral yi" who was korean and had a fleet of turtle ships with which he kicked japanese naval ass twice
who knew?
so my first thought is "funny, admiral yi [lunguishta yi that is] didnt seem korean"? then i'm thinking how does one seem korean on a discussion forum?
i recognize this is a non traditional hijack for languish but it seems topical to this thread
please discuss
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 15, 2011, 04:32:01 PM
There are other possibilities as well.
Please elaborate.
I don't think Tim has sufficient dimension to be two-faced.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:27:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:23:52 PM
Where did that question come from? :unsure:
No, he's on his 2nd wife and has two kids with the first.
Timmy, one of the problems with calling a person a useless piece of shit is if you engage in friendly discourse with them, you come across as two-faced, whereas if you object violently to what they post you come across as a stalker.
The question was just so out of the blue and odd that I wanted to know what prompted it. I wouldn't call that friendly discourse.
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 04:40:49 PM
so i'm jogging the other day and listening to a whole bunch of pod casts on international history on the ipod shuffle
to my chagrin mile two is about some dude named "admiral yi" who had was korean and had a fleet of turtle ships with which he kicked japanese naval ass twice
who knew?
so my first thought is "funny, admiral yi [lunguishta yi that is] didnt seem korean"? then i'm thinking how does one seem korean on a discussion forum?
i recognize this is a non traditional hijack for languish but it seems topical to this thread
please discuss
He seemed pretty Korean to me, what with all the times he said he was half-Korean. He is too fucking tall to be properly Asian, though. I assume he's some sort of mutant, like that basketball guy. The point is, he's not fitting in any tunnels.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 04:40:49 PM
so i'm jogging the other day and listening to a whole bunch of pod casts on international history on the ipod shuffle
to my chagrin mile two is about some dude named "admiral yi" who had was korean and had a fleet of turtle ships with which he kicked japanese naval ass twice
who knew?
so my first thought is "funny, admiral yi [lunguishta yi that is] didnt seem korean"? then i'm thinking how does one seem korean on a discussion forum?
i recognize this is a non traditional hijack for languish but it seems topical to this thread
please discuss
He seemed pretty Korean to me, what with all the times he said he was half-Korean. He is too fucking tall to be properly Asian, though. I assume he's some sort of mutant, like that basketball guy.
ive never met him nor noticed him claim to be half korean
is that something he's said in person or posts he's made on the forum
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 04:40:49 PM
so i'm jogging the other day and listening to a whole bunch of pod casts on international history on the ipod shuffle
to my chagrin mile two is about some dude named "admiral yi" who had was korean and had a fleet of turtle ships with which he kicked japanese naval ass twice
who knew?
so my first thought is "funny, admiral yi [lunguishta yi that is] didnt seem korean"? then i'm thinking how does one seem korean on a discussion forum?
i recognize this is a non traditional hijack for languish but it seems topical to this thread
please discuss
He seemed pretty Korean to me, what with all the times he said he was half-Korean. He is too fucking tall to be properly Asian, though. I assume he's some sort of mutant, like that basketball guy.
ive never met him nor noticed him claim to be half korean
is that something he's said in person or posts he's made on the forum
There's been a couple of photo-documentaries on the forum involving him as well...
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 04:40:49 PM
so i'm jogging the other day and listening to a whole bunch of pod casts on international history on the ipod shuffle
to my chagrin mile two is about some dude named "admiral yi" who had was korean and had a fleet of turtle ships with which he kicked japanese naval ass twice
who knew?
so my first thought is "funny, admiral yi [lunguishta yi that is] didnt seem korean"? then i'm thinking how does one seem korean on a discussion forum?
i recognize this is a non traditional hijack for languish but it seems topical to this thread
please discuss
He seemed pretty Korean to me, what with all the times he said he was half-Korean. He is too fucking tall to be properly Asian, though. I assume he's some sort of mutant, like that basketball guy.
ive never met him nor noticed him claim to be half korean
is that something he's said in person or posts he's made on the forum
I'm reasonably positive he mentioned it on the forum, albeit ages ago. I suppose I could be misremembering.
PLJ, doesnt your Ipod have a button of some sort you can push to skip stuff you dont want to hear about?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:49:54 PM
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit. I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.
Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret. Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 04:56:18 PM
PLJ, doesnt your Ipod have a button of some sort you can push to skip stuff you dont want to hear about?
probably
but i dont know how to work it beyond on and off
my daughter down loads my material for me
i was born 150 years later than intended
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:49:54 PM
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit. I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.
Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret. Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.
i pictured you looking like john belushi in animal house
dont know why though
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 05:01:58 PM
i pictured you looking like john belushi in animal house
dont know why though
I do have an enormous melon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:49:54 PM
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit. I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.
Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret. Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.
Several people here have called me horrible things and I still chat with them. I don't see how this is different. The very nature of anonymous internet forums lends an artificial nature to almost all conversations that occur on them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 05:01:58 PM
i pictured you looking like john belushi in animal house
dont know why though
I do have an enormous melon.
Lets not get Marti excited.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:49:54 PM
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit. I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.
Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret. Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.
Are you ful blooded dog muncher, or a half breed? For some reason I keep thinking you are only half.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 05:05:30 PM
Are you ful blooded dog muncher, or a half breed? For some reason I keep thinking you are only half.
Breed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 05:03:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:49:54 PM
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit. I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.
Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret. Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.
Several people here have called me horrible things and I still chat with them. I don't see how this is different. The very nature of anonymous internet forums lends an artificial nature to almost all conversations that occur on them.
:hmm:
yours was pretty over the top ad hominem
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 05:01:58 PM
i pictured you looking like john belushi in animal house
dont know why though
I do have an enormous melon.
that's what sandusky said...
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 05:19:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 05:03:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:49:54 PM
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit. I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.
Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret. Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.
Several people here have called me horrible things and I still chat with them. I don't see how this is different. The very nature of anonymous internet forums lends an artificial nature to almost all conversations that occur on them.
:hmm:
yours was pretty over the top ad hominem
I don't see how anyone can read what he wrote and not find it repulsive. Maybe Slargos has written something worse once upon a time, but I doubt it.
I guess I missed the part where Tim was mean. Summary?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 05:32:12 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 05:19:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 05:03:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:49:54 PM
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit. I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.
Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret. Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.
Several people here have called me horrible things and I still chat with them. I don't see how this is different. The very nature of anonymous internet forums lends an artificial nature to almost all conversations that occur on them.
:hmm:
yours was pretty over the top ad hominem
I don't see how anyone can read what he wrote and not find it repulsive. Maybe Slargos has written something worse once upon a time, but I doubt it.
nobody is suggesting you shouldve agreed with it but you left no room for his having even misppoken before you essentially called him the defender of child molesters and rapists
do you suggest that youve never expressed something and had it come out differently than intended?
if so you havent been around enough women to have had it pointed out to you with frequency
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 05:33:39 PM
I guess I missed the part where Tim was mean. Summary?
yi says:
unless it was obvious rape rape im not sure howd id have reacted had i walked in the scene mcreary walked in on
so then like timmay says:
omg kikikikiki you are the devil and a baby raper and i will never respect anything you ever say again
I agree with the substance of what Yi said anyways. I don't have any experience stumbling upon Man-Boy sexual encounters, so how can I say what I'd do? If I hear a kid screaming for help, and then run into the locker room to help and see him being raped, that's pretty straightforward. But if I'm rounding the corner, and look up from drawing X's and O's on my clipboard or whatever GA's do, and see my trusted adviser Sandusky with a 10-year-old...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 15, 2011, 05:57:54 PM
I agree with the substance of what Yi said anyways. I don't have any experience stumbling upon Man-Boy sexual encounters, so how can I say what I'd do? If I hear a kid screaming for help, and then run into the locker room to help and see him being raped, that's pretty straightforward. But if I'm rounding the corner, and look up from drawing X's and O's on my clipboard or whatever GA's do, and see my trusted adviser Sandusky with a 10-year-old...
Not this again.
Sandusky was not with the program at that time. Anyway the argument Yi made that drew Tim's ire was one could not tell the diffrence between a 10 year old and a 16 year old (which is apparently a legal age to have sex with a 50+ year old in that State). Yi was told a couple things about that - first the GA said he thought the boy was 10 and second it is pretty easy to tell the difference between a 10 year old and a 16 year old.
Yi backed off but Tim kept up with the Pedo apologist accusation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
Yi backed off but Tim kept up with the Pedo apologist accusation.
Where? :huh:
I dunno, I suppose it's reasonably possible that you might not realize that some kid in the fog is 10, this being hypothetical and actual facts of the case aside.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 15, 2011, 05:57:54 PM
I agree with the substance of what Yi said anyways. I don't have any experience stumbling upon Man-Boy sexual encounters, so how can I say what I'd do? If I hear a kid screaming for help, and then run into the locker room to help and see him being raped, that's pretty straightforward. But if I'm rounding the corner, and look up from drawing X's and O's on my clipboard or whatever GA's do, and see my trusted adviser Sandusky with a 10-year-old...
Not this again.
Sandusky was not with the program at that time. Anyway the argument Yi made that drew Tim's ire was one could not tell the diffrence between a 10 year old and a 16 year old (which is apparently a legal age to have sex with a 50+ year old in that State). Yi was told a couple things about that - first the GA said he thought the boy was 10 and second it is pretty easy to tell the difference between a 10 year old and a 16 year old.
Yi backed off but Tim kept up with the Pedo apologist accusation.
agreed
what yi said was pretty stupid
but since we know that yi is not in fact pretty stupid, i'm prepared to accept the fact that in an attempt to express the notion that he did not know what hed do if he walked up on that scene, he misppoke and said some stupid shit that made no sense
upon reflection i suspect that yi wouldve figured it out on his own, and maybe even clarified what he was trying to say, but he got defensive and got his hackles up before he could even have that moment to think about the implication of what he appeared to be saying
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
Yi backed off but Tim kept up with the Pedo apologist accusation.
Where? :huh:
I dont recall Yi arguing his position after PLJ and I made those points. I dont require Yi to say "oh ya, got that wrong".
If he gone on to say that there is nothing wrong with having sex with a 10 year old then I think your accusation would have had some merit. But Yi never came close to that.
tim
would you have reacted the same way if you knew that yi was half korean?
or did you in fact react the way you did because yi appears to be korean?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 06:07:12 PM
I dunno, I suppose it's reasonably possible that you might not realize that some kid in the fog is 10, this being hypothetical and actual facts of the case aside.
That was Yi's point
Quote from: Rasputin on November 15, 2011, 06:10:54 PM
tim
would you have reacted the same way if you knew that yi was half korean?
or did you in fact react the way you did because yi appears to be korean?
:hmm: What are you implying?
I've lived in Korea and known Yi was half Korean. Koreans are much taller than advertised, no way you could confuse a ten year old there with a 16 year old.
i'm suggesting you're a koreophobe
i'm saying that had yi been a round eye, you'd have not said that he was a vile pedo-apologist; i'm saying that when yi said he couldn't tell the difference between a 10 year old and a 16 year old boy, you'd had just about enough of those asians using their poor eyesight as an excuse and you let him have it
i'm saying that all you saw was yellow
that's what i'm saying
by the way does ide know that you used to live in korea? :perv:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
Anyway the argument Yi made that drew Tim's ire was one could not tell the diffrence between a 10 year old and a 16 year old (which is apparently a legal age to have sex with a 50+ year old in that State).
No, that's a mischaracterization. I was arguing that one could not distinguish between a 10 year old and a 16 year old with sufficient *certainty* to overcome the normal inhibition about intruding into a sexual situation. Actually, not the general "one," but the narrower I, and I expect others as well. I further argued that there's a not a clear break point at the legal age of consent, that the normal person doesn't see a 16 year old getting fucked up the ass and say "go get 'em tiger" but break out the chainsaw and call out the lynch mob if it's a 15 year old getting fucked up the ass.
I think McQueary had an extremely normal reaction: he freaked out and asked his dad what the fuck he was supposed to do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 06:39:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
Anyway the argument Yi made that drew Tim's ire was one could not tell the diffrence between a 10 year old and a 16 year old (which is apparently a legal age to have sex with a 50+ year old in that State).
No, that's a mischaracterization. I was arguing that one could not distinguish between a 10 year old and a 16 year old with sufficient *certainty* to overcome the normal inhibition about intruding into a sexual situation. Actually, not the general "one," but the narrower I, and I expect others as well. I further argued that there's a not a clear break point at the legal age of consent, that the normal person doesn't see a 16 year old getting fucked up the ass and say "go get 'em tiger" but break out the chainsaw and call out the lynch mob if it's a 15 year old getting fucked up the ass.
I think McQueary had an extremely normal reaction: he freaked out and asked his dad what the fuck he was supposed to do.
Except McQueary said he thought the boy was 10 so your hypothetical about possible confusion as to whether this might be consensual doesnt work.
For those who were so quick to judgment based on the grand jury report, here is some more information from McQuery:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/mc-penn-state-scandal-mcqueary-20111115,0,676103.story
QuoteMike McQueary, the Penn State assistant football coach under fire for his reported lack of action in an alleged 2002 rape of a boy by Jerry Sandusky, said in an email to a former classmate that he stopped the assault in an athletic facility shower and discussed it with police.
In the email obtained by The Morning Call, McQueary wrote that he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" following the alleged incident between Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant coach, and a boy. McQueary also wrote that he "is getting hammered for handling this the right way or what I thought at the time was right."
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:58:55 PM
Except McQueary said he thought the boy was 10 so your hypothetical about possible confusion as to whether this might be consensual doesnt work.
Seems to me thinking he was 10, as opposed to knowing he was 10, still leaves quite a bit of scope for uncertainty.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:58:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 06:39:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
Anyway the argument Yi made that drew Tim's ire was one could not tell the diffrence between a 10 year old and a 16 year old (which is apparently a legal age to have sex with a 50+ year old in that State).
No, that's a mischaracterization. I was arguing that one could not distinguish between a 10 year old and a 16 year old with sufficient *certainty* to overcome the normal inhibition about intruding into a sexual situation. Actually, not the general "one," but the narrower I, and I expect others as well. I further argued that there's a not a clear break point at the legal age of consent, that the normal person doesn't see a 16 year old getting fucked up the ass and say "go get 'em tiger" but break out the chainsaw and call out the lynch mob if it's a 15 year old getting fucked up the ass.
I think McQueary had an extremely normal reaction: he freaked out and asked his dad what the fuck he was supposed to do.
Except McQueary said he thought the boy was 10 so your hypothetical about possible confusion as to whether this might be consensual doesnt work.
And also according to McQuery he made sure the abuse stopped and went to the police. So maybe Tim's rush to judge him a monster was a bit too hasty.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 07:03:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:58:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 06:39:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
Anyway the argument Yi made that drew Tim's ire was one could not tell the diffrence between a 10 year old and a 16 year old (which is apparently a legal age to have sex with a 50+ year old in that State).
No, that's a mischaracterization. I was arguing that one could not distinguish between a 10 year old and a 16 year old with sufficient *certainty* to overcome the normal inhibition about intruding into a sexual situation. Actually, not the general "one," but the narrower I, and I expect others as well. I further argued that there's a not a clear break point at the legal age of consent, that the normal person doesn't see a 16 year old getting fucked up the ass and say "go get 'em tiger" but break out the chainsaw and call out the lynch mob if it's a 15 year old getting fucked up the ass.
I think McQueary had an extremely normal reaction: he freaked out and asked his dad what the fuck he was supposed to do.
Except McQueary said he thought the boy was 10 so your hypothetical about possible confusion as to whether this might be consensual doesnt work.
And also according to McQuery he made sure the abuse stopped and went to the police. So maybe Tim's rush to judge him a monster was a bit too hasty.
Did I judge him a monster too?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 07:04:53 PM
Did I judge him a monster too?
I don't know. The thread is too long to go back and see. I think you had a negative judgment about his character based on what was in the grand jury report.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 07:03:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:58:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 06:39:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
Anyway the argument Yi made that drew Tim's ire was one could not tell the diffrence between a 10 year old and a 16 year old (which is apparently a legal age to have sex with a 50+ year old in that State).
No, that's a mischaracterization. I was arguing that one could not distinguish between a 10 year old and a 16 year old with sufficient *certainty* to overcome the normal inhibition about intruding into a sexual situation. Actually, not the general "one," but the narrower I, and I expect others as well. I further argued that there's a not a clear break point at the legal age of consent, that the normal person doesn't see a 16 year old getting fucked up the ass and say "go get 'em tiger" but break out the chainsaw and call out the lynch mob if it's a 15 year old getting fucked up the ass.
I think McQueary had an extremely normal reaction: he freaked out and asked his dad what the fuck he was supposed to do.
Except McQueary said he thought the boy was 10 so your hypothetical about possible confusion as to whether this might be consensual doesnt work.
And also according to McQuery he made sure the abuse stopped and went to the police. So maybe Tim's rush to judge him a monster was a bit too hasty.
Isnt that email inconsistent with what he told the Grand Jury? Seems to be more butt covering than anything. Ok bad pun. We shall see in the fullness of time.
And no Yi, if someone thinks the boy is 10 they should stop the rape. Mcquery doesnt say I did know if he was 10 or not. He said the boy was 10.
I think the most extreme reaction to McQueary's reported actions came from Meri, not Tim.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 07:07:32 PM
Isnt that email inconsistent with what he told the Grand Jury? Seems to be more butt covering than anything. Ok bad pun. We shall see in the fullness of time.
No--although you would think they would have been mentioned.
The grand jury report just mentioned that when seeing the incident "he left immediately"--it could be that he was spotted or said something and Sandusky somehow retreated. There is some wiggle room there.
Also, the report says he was never questioned by police. McQuery states that he notified the police and the official in charge of police: which was the VP Finance. It seems unlikely, but perhaps he notified university police and the VP Finance somehow shut the investigation down.
Maybe he is just trying to cover for himself and is now making up a more palatable version of what happened. Maybe there is a lot more to this. I assume it will get sorted out. But based on the incident that this guy saw, the football coach, VP Finance, AD, and President have all been effectively terminated. I think this highlights what I was arguing earlier: unless they had more information than what they said they had, the Board was too hasty in its firings.
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2011, 07:09:02 PM
I think the most extreme reaction to McQueary's reported actions came from Meri, not Tim.
Not at all. Wishing a painful death on some miscreant happens fairly frequently on languish. Timmy's freak-out was of a much less frequent nature, not to mention much more personal.
I said I hoped he got killed if he was on the sidelines on Saturday. :showoff:
Quote from: sbr on November 15, 2011, 08:11:25 PM
I said I hoped he got killed if he was on the sidelines on Saturday. :showoff:
Maybe he be at this week's game and Brutus will execute him on the 'O'. Or an extra special dotting of the i as Brutus buttrapes McQueary.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 15, 2011, 08:17:58 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 15, 2011, 08:11:25 PM
I said I hoped he got killed if he was on the sidelines on Saturday. :showoff:
Maybe he be at this week's game and Brutus will execute him on the 'O'. Or an extra special dotting of the i as Brutus buttrapes McQueary.
But isn't Ohio State going to lose that game?
Quote from: Neil on November 15, 2011, 08:26:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 15, 2011, 08:17:58 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 15, 2011, 08:11:25 PM
I said I hoped he got killed if he was on the sidelines on Saturday. :showoff:
Maybe he be at this week's game and Brutus will execute him on the 'O'. Or an extra special dotting of the i as Brutus buttrapes McQueary.
But isn't Ohio State going to lose that game?
I shook my magic 8 ball and it said 'outlook not clear'.
I can't wait to see the signs that the Buckeye fans bring.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 08:49:05 PM
I can't wait to see the signs that the Buckeye fans bring.
I bet you can't, faggot.
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2011, 07:09:02 PM
I think the most extreme reaction to McQueary's reported actions came from Meri, not Tim.
i agree. Meri wanted him to commit suicide
Canuck is right though; this version of events seems like cya and is very inconsistent with the grand jury.
If mcreary went to the cops and schultz/curley knew it there was no need for them to report what had already been reported and no need to charge them
Further one would assume that the grand jury wouldve mentioned the police report as it did with the earlier 99 event.
Maybe he went to the campus police, not the 'real' police, and they didn't bother to follow up on it? :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 07:01:09 PM
For those who were so quick to judgment based on the grand jury report, here is some more information from McQuery:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/mc-penn-state-scandal-mcqueary-20111115,0,676103.story
QuoteMike McQueary, the Penn State assistant football coach under fire for his reported lack of action in an alleged 2002 rape of a boy by Jerry Sandusky, said in an email to a former classmate that he stopped the assault in an athletic facility shower and discussed it with police.
In the email obtained by The Morning Call, McQueary wrote that he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" following the alleged incident between Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant coach, and a boy. McQueary also wrote that he "is getting hammered for handling this the right way or what I thought at the time was right."
I really hope this is true, but it seems very unlikely.
Not really an assault, is it?
What's the deal with Tim in this thread?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 10:37:07 PM
What's the deal with Tim in this thread?
Pedophiles = safe target to get riled up with self-righteous indignation. Tim likes to be indignant and to bandwagon, so it seems like a perfect match.
Ouch. That's center mass. Hope he was wearing his ballistic armor.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 15, 2011, 10:46:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 10:37:07 PM
What's the deal with Tim in this thread?
Pedophiles = safe target to get riled up with self-righteous indignation. Tim likes to be indignant and to bandwagon, so it seems like a perfect match.
I honestly don't understand that to well. Pedophiles claim they can't help it. They are born that way. Why is one abnormal outlet of sexuality which people are predisposed to by birth demonized and another tolerated and even celebrated?
Utility.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 07:21:16 PM
The grand jury report just mentioned that when seeing the incident "he left immediately"--it could be that he was spotted or said something and Sandusky somehow retreated. There is some wiggle room there.
I dont know. "He left immediately" doesnt leave much wiggle room in my mind. It is curious that there is no mention in the GJ report of him stopping the rape. That would seem to be a fairly significant fact. It is also curious that if he did mention it to the police that the police did absolutely nothing about it.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 04:38:56 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 15, 2011, 04:35:24 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
Or simply have a different appreciation for being able to function as a normal member of society who also isn't in fear of personal attack.
"Not being in fear of personal attack" and "being in prison" don't have a lot in common.... :hmm:
Unless you mean being in solitary confinement? :huh:
I assume they can find ways to keep you safe while you are in custody if you are at obvious risk of attack. Maybe that is solitary confinement, but I don't know much about how prison works.
The only way, really, is to keep you in solitary, as Mihali and I both suggested. And don't assume that prison officials really want to go to any great lengths to keep convicted child molesters safe.
Quote from: dps on November 16, 2011, 01:15:52 AM
The only way, really, is to keep you in solitary, as Mihali and I both suggested. And don't assume that prison officials really want to go to any great lengths to keep convicted child molesters safe.
Solitary confinement in state prisons is a myth. They will get to you, one way or another.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 11:49:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 07:21:16 PM
The grand jury report just mentioned that when seeing the incident "he left immediately"--it could be that he was spotted or said something and Sandusky somehow retreated. There is some wiggle room there.
I dont know. "He left immediately" doesnt leave much wiggle room in my mind. It is curious that there is no mention in the GJ report of him stopping the rape. That would seem to be a fairly significant fact. It is also curious that if he did mention it to the police that the police did absolutely nothing about it.
:yes:
this reaks of ex post facto confabulation in reaction to the death threats hes received
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 11:49:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 07:21:16 PM
The grand jury report just mentioned that when seeing the incident "he left immediately"--it could be that he was spotted or said something and Sandusky somehow retreated. There is some wiggle room there.
I dont know. "He left immediately" doesnt leave much wiggle room in my mind. It is curious that there is no mention in the GJ report of him stopping the rape. That would seem to be a fairly significant fact. It is also curious that if he did mention it to the police that the police did absolutely nothing about it.
Maybe. There were also people in this thread implying that Paterno was less than truthful based the GJ report saying the GA told him "what he saw" and Paterno said the report was just "fondling or something of a sexual nature." Then the AG's office came out and said Paterno gave truthful testimony.
Regardless, it seems likely there is some combination of two possibiliites: 1) McQuery is telling the truth now, and the police were notified, in which case firing everyone seems completely wrong as they may have actually done the right thing, or 2) McQuery is now making stuff up about the incident, which calls into question the testimony he gave which is so much of the background of the grand jury testimony that led to everyone being fired.
Quote from: dps on November 16, 2011, 01:15:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 04:38:56 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 15, 2011, 04:35:24 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
Or simply have a different appreciation for being able to function as a normal member of society who also isn't in fear of personal attack.
"Not being in fear of personal attack" and "being in prison" don't have a lot in common.... :hmm:
Unless you mean being in solitary confinement? :huh:
I assume they can find ways to keep you safe while you are in custody if you are at obvious risk of attack. Maybe that is solitary confinement, but I don't know much about how prison works.
The only way, really, is to keep you in solitary, as Mihali and I both suggested. And don't assume that prison officials really want to go to any great lengths to keep convicted child molesters safe.
I saw a documentary on IIRC San Quentin and they had a "safe" area for pedophiles and ex-gangers etc. Not solitary, but only people who wouldn't last long among normal prisoners.
And was someone drunk recently? Yi is known for three things:
1. Half-Korean
2. Dial-up
3. Tiny cock
Not all of them are necessarily still true.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2011, 10:22:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 11:49:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 07:21:16 PM
The grand jury report just mentioned that when seeing the incident "he left immediately"--it could be that he was spotted or said something and Sandusky somehow retreated. There is some wiggle room there.
I dont know. "He left immediately" doesnt leave much wiggle room in my mind. It is curious that there is no mention in the GJ report of him stopping the rape. That would seem to be a fairly significant fact. It is also curious that if he did mention it to the police that the police did absolutely nothing about it.
Maybe. There were also people in this thread implying that Paterno was less than truthful based the GJ report saying the GA told him "what he saw" and Paterno said the report was just "fondling or something of a sexual nature." Then the AG's office came out and said Paterno gave truthful testimony.
Regardless, it seems likely there is some combination of two possibiliites: 1) McQuery is telling the truth now, and the police were notified, in which case firing everyone seems completely wrong as they may have actually done the right thing, or 2) McQuery is now making stuff up about the incident, which calls into question the testimony he gave which is so much of the background of the grand jury testimony that led to everyone being fired.
No. Paterno testified, apparently truthfully, that he
told others McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".
This does *not* indicate that Paterno was
told by McQ that McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".
The Indictment does not say exactly what McQ told P other that "what he saw". The argument is over whether McQ told P exactly "what he saw" and McQ
chose to water it down when telling the others who
in turn, watered it down still further into "horseplay" even after McQ told them explicitly what he saw - or not.
I'd say the natural read is that McQ, who has been explicit all along, was explicit with P. when he "told him what he saw". I know that Minsky disagrees, because in his view McQ respected P. like a grandfather and would never say anything so uncouth as mention anal sex to him - but one thing is sure: the fact that P said McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature" does not of necessity mean that this is all McQ told P.
The "left immediately" is being subjected to the same counterintuitive wriggling that "told what he saw" was.
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2011, 11:02:26 AM
And was someone drunk recently? Yi is known for three things:
1. Half-Korean
2. Dial-up
3. Tiny cock
Not all of them are necessarily still true.
yi has cock implants?
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2011, 11:04:11 AM
No. Paterno testified, apparently truthfully, that he told others McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".
This does *not* indicate that Paterno was told by McQ that McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".
The Indictment does not say exactly what McQ told P other that "what he saw". The argument is over whether McQ told P exactly "what he saw" and McQ chose to water it down when telling the others who in turn, watered it down still further into "horseplay" even after McQ told them explicitly what he saw - or not.
I'd say the natural read is that McQ, who has been explicit all along, was explicit with P. when he "told him what he saw". I know that Minsky disagrees, because in his view McQ respected P. like a grandfather and would never say anything so uncouth as mention anal sex to him - but one thing is sure: the fact that P said McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature" does not of necessity mean that this is all McQ told P.
The "left immediately" is being subjected to the same counterintuitive wriggling that "told what he saw" was.
Fair enough on what the GJ report explicitly said. However, Paterno has since commented that:
"Paterno has defended his decision to take the news to Curley and Schultz. Paterno said it was obvious that the graduate student, since identified as McQueary, was "distraught," but said he was not told about the "very specific actions" of the sexual assault in the grand jury report."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57321343/paterno-retiring-amid-child-abuse-tragedy/
That is outside the GJ testimony, but was a statement made prior to the AG expressing concern over Paterno's firing.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2011, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2011, 11:04:11 AM
No. Paterno testified, apparently truthfully, that he told others McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".
This does *not* indicate that Paterno was told by McQ that McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".
The Indictment does not say exactly what McQ told P other that "what he saw". The argument is over whether McQ told P exactly "what he saw" and McQ chose to water it down when telling the others who in turn, watered it down still further into "horseplay" even after McQ told them explicitly what he saw - or not.
I'd say the natural read is that McQ, who has been explicit all along, was explicit with P. when he "told him what he saw". I know that Minsky disagrees, because in his view McQ respected P. like a grandfather and would never say anything so uncouth as mention anal sex to him - but one thing is sure: the fact that P said McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature" does not of necessity mean that this is all McQ told P.
The "left immediately" is being subjected to the same counterintuitive wriggling that "told what he saw" was.
Fair enough on what the GJ report explicitly said. However, Paterno has since commented that:
"Paterno has defended his decision to take the news to Curley and Schultz. Paterno said it was obvious that the graduate student, since identified as McQueary, was "distraught," but said he was not told about the "very specific actions" of the sexual assault in the grand jury report."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57321343/paterno-retiring-amid-child-abuse-tragedy/
That is outside the GJ testimony, but was a statement made prior to the AG expressing concern over Paterno's firing.
Well, of course he's going to say that. He has to, because otherwise it looks like he's watering down what he was told and doing nothing (or very little) about it - that is, committing the same fault as the two accused of perjury. Though this doesn't save him really, since the difference between doing nothing when explicitly told S. was caught with his dick up a boy's ass and doing nothing when vaguely told S. was "doing something of a sexual nature" with a boy isn't much.
What he didn't do, at least so far, is say it under oath before the GJ. Hence, he cannot be accused of perjury, even if it happens not to be true.
Clearly, exactly what McD told P. is going to feature prominently in the numerous lawsuits to come.
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2011, 11:51:20 AM
Well, of course he's going to say that. He has to, because otherwise it looks like he's watering down what he was told and doing nothing (or very little) about it - that is, committing the same fault as the two accused of perjury. Though this doesn't save him really, since the difference between doing nothing when explicitly told S. was caught with his dick up a boy's ass and doing nothing when vaguely told S. was "doing something of a sexual nature" with a boy isn't much.
What he didn't do, at least so far, is say it under oath before the GJ. Hence, he cannot be accused of perjury, even if it happens not to be true.
Clearly, exactly what McD told P. is going to feature prominently in the numerous lawsuits to come.
But we don't know for certain what he said to the grand jury, and we don't know what McQuery said either. We have an ambiguous one paragraph summary that paraphrases and can be interpreted many different ways. We also know that the Grand Jury explicitly says they found McQuery's testimony to be truthful, and the AG said the same regarding Paterno.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2011, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2011, 11:51:20 AM
Well, of course he's going to say that. He has to, because otherwise it looks like he's watering down what he was told and doing nothing (or very little) about it - that is, committing the same fault as the two accused of perjury. Though this doesn't save him really, since the difference between doing nothing when explicitly told S. was caught with his dick up a boy's ass and doing nothing when vaguely told S. was "doing something of a sexual nature" with a boy isn't much.
What he didn't do, at least so far, is say it under oath before the GJ. Hence, he cannot be accused of perjury, even if it happens not to be true.
Clearly, exactly what McD told P. is going to feature prominently in the numerous lawsuits to come.
But we don't know for certain what he said to the grand jury, and we don't know what McQuery said either. We have an ambiguous one paragraph summary that paraphrases and can be interpreted many different ways. We also know that the Grand Jury explicitly says they found McQuery's testimony to be truthful, and the AG said the same regarding Paterno.
There is nothing "untruthful" about P testifying that McQ told him he saw S anally-raping a boy - and then that P told others that S was caught doing "something of a sexual nature".
Perfectly truthful testimony.
Seems like Penn state makes a habbit of sweeping things under the rug. :wacko:
http://loop21.com/content/other-penn-state-cover-death-threats-against-black-students
QuoteThe Other Penn State Cover-Up: Death Threats Against Black Students
Hate mail to black students and a death, all swept away by PSU
As news unravels around the grand jury report revealing charges against former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky for raping and sexually molesting underage boys, some former black Penn State students are now painfully reliving a scandal that occurred at their university ten years ago. In 2000, the year a janitor witnessed a boy younger than 13 ("Victim 8" in a grand jury report) "pinned against a wall" while Sandusky performed oral sex on him, black students and football players on Penn State's campus began receiving hate mail.
The hate mail sent to black students had nothing to do with Sandusky's proclivities, but the two incidences shared something in common: both were ultimately covered up by the university, even as both chain of events grew worse. Sandusky went on to molest and possibly rape more boys, according to a grand jury report (Sandusky denies foul play), and hate mail against black students became death threats.
Ultimately, a black man's dead body was found by police near Penn State as one of the death threats said it would. And some black students had to attend their graduation the following May with bulletproof vests on in fear of their life.
But few know about the death threats because Penn State and Joe Paterno were not willing to allow bad publicity to ruin the university's image, say some of the black students at the center of the tragic events.
LaKeisha Wolf was president of Penn State's Black Caucus ten years ago, and she received the lion's share of life-threatening letters. Today, she watches the news about Sandusky's rape charges, the firing of Joe Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier, and the student riots that ensued, and it takes her right back to her days dealing with the university.
In fact, Wolf and other concerned black students met with Paterno back in 2001 because of information circulating that black football players, like then-quarterback Rashard Casey, had been receiving death threats. Wolf recalls Paterno as almost emotionless.
"He didn't necessarily blatantly show concern," says Wolf. "He was just really composed -- kinda non-emotional I would say. It was like he would have had the same amount of energy and response whether we were talking about death threats or what was for lunch. It was just a non-descript kind of demeanor."
Images of the letters received by Wolf & Lang
Paterno is known for his deadpan deliveries during press conferences after Penn State games, win or lose. But this wasn't a game. Students were fearful for their lives. That year, Penn State was experiencing an unusual losing season – a big deal in the college franchise that spawned multiple national championships and undefeated seasons under Paterno's 45-year reign. Much vitriol was aimed at Penn State's black quarterback – also unusual in Penn State's mostly white quarterbacked history – Casey, who along with losing games was arrested in the off-season for fighting a white cop, allegedly over the cop's African American date. Casey was cleared of those charges, but even Paterno admitted that the quarterback remained the target of hate mail.
But Paterno wasn't so moved to have Penn State confront the hostile climate.
Assata Richards, who was a leader of the Village student movement to increase diversity initiatives at Penn State, was at the 2001 meeting with Wolf and Paterno and today still remembers the cold response he gave them about the death threats.
"We asked him to talk to the players because we were concerned about their safety," says Richards, "and he said in that meeting that he would never do anything to put the university in a bad light. So we said, 'Then you are choosing the university over students lives.'"
Wolf was chilled by Paterno's response also. She says Paterno told them, "I'm only a football coach."
Says Wolf, "To me that said that even if he had specific knowledge of football players' or students' lives in danger that he wouldn't allow that to risk Penn State's image being tainted and that is something that has stuck in my mind for the last ten years."
Today, in the Sandusky case, too many details have been revealed that show Penn State officials acted more to cover up crimes than to report them. Whether that was to protect the university's image or not will eventually come out in court. But the grand jury report shows that when a grad assistant, who we now know is assistant football coach Mike McQueary, reported in 2002 seeing Sandusky raping a ten-year-old boy ("Victim 2") in a locker room shower, that officials never reported anything to the police.
McQueary, who's now on leave from the team, reported the rape to Joe Paterno who then reported it to senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz and now resigned president Graham Spanier. But no one reported to law authorities. Schultz testified that the allegations as heard from McQueary were "not that serious" and that he "had no indication that a crime had occurred."
These same people – Paterno, Spanier and Schultz – were the same officials involved in the case ten years ago when Wolf was the target of death threats. But Wolf said none of them nor the police ever questioned her about the letters she was receiving. Then one week in April, Daryl Lang, a reporter for Penn State's Daily Collegian, received a death threat letter aimed at Wolf. It read:
"daryl nigger lover lang, since you love niggers so much, ... maybe you can do president wolf, a favor by delivering the enclosed letter to her."
Not long before that, Wolf received a letter from an anonymous source that said "we are determined to rid this place of this black blight on our community. Those like you have been run off or killed." The letter told Wolf to "have the authorities search mt nittany near the summit, north slope" for the body of a dead "young black buck."
A few days later, a the body of a black man was in fact found in the area.
Because Penn State officials wouldn't do anything to alert the student body, and Paterno seemed careless about threats to his players, Wolf, Richards and other black students took matters into their own hands. On April 21, the day of Penn State's famous "Blue-White" game, Wolf and 40 other students stormed onto Penn State's football field just before kickoff to draw attention to the racial hate problems – call it an early "Occupy Penn State" move.
Cops apprehended 14 of them, but 26 made it to the center of the field, locked arms and sat down until police broke them up and carted them away. They were all arrested.
Compare that to last week, where hundreds of students occupied downtown State College (where Penn State is located) and held a riot after Paterno was fired, taking down lamp posts, setting cars on fire and overturning a local news van. When Loop 21 contacted State College police to ask how many were arrested in that melee we were told that they "couldn't tell us because an investigation was ongoing."
When Assata Richards looks at the Sandusky news, the university's cover ups, and the students' rioting protests she says she's "not surprised at all."
News outlets, says Richards, "are reporting and saying things today that they said back then: 'This sounds like a cover up,' 'Why weren't more people notified?' 'Why weren't parents notified?' It's scary for me because all of these institutional leaders are the same ones we remember so well and interacted with."
As for the riots, says Richards: "It's so interesting because when I heard about Paterno being fired and how students responded, I'm thinking about when we were rallying around our issues and how we were arrested. We were not slapped on the wrist, but we were in no way doing anything harmful. We never destroyed property, but we were arrested for saying, 'Hey something is happening, people are being harassed and threatened, and a person was killed.' For that, we were treated as criminals."
Habbit? The hobbit/rabbit hybrid is a work of fiction I'm afraid. Or at least not fertile.
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Habbit? The hobbit/rabbit hybrid is a work of fiction I'm afraid. Or at least not fertile.
Is there anything about animal sexuality you dont know?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2011, 03:56:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
Habbit? The hobbit/rabbit hybrid is a work of fiction I'm afraid. Or at least not fertile.
Is there anything about animal sexuality you dont know?
God I hope not.
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2011, 03:08:35 PM
There is nothing "untruthful" about P testifying that McQ told him he saw S anally-raping a boy - and then that P told others that S was caught doing "something of a sexual nature".
Perfectly truthful testimony.
That is true, but also not the only possible explanation.
The practical reality is that the AG made the decision early on that he needed Paterno to get to Curley and Schultz (C & S).
Without Paterno, the failure to report charge vs. C&S comes down to what McQ actually told them and that just his word against theirs. Standing alone, that is a weak criminal case on a what was in 2002 a very minor ("summary") offense.
But with Paterno saying that he said the magic words "something of a sexual nature" to Curley, the case is transformed. Because those words, while imprecise, are arguably sufficient to put Curley on notice that his reporting obligation was triggered. And Paterno's account bolsters McQ's account that he told C&S the contact was sexual (which Curely apparently denied).
From the prosecutor's POV, the beauty is that the only way S&C can challenge the report charges pre-indictment is to appear before the GJ (and not take the 5th) but once they do so, they expose themselves to the more serious pejury charge (a summary offense carries a max setence of 90 days, but pejury is a 3d degree felony with a max jail term of 7 years).
But the key to both charges is getting Paterno sufficiently aligned.
Yi, I definitely went over the line earlier in this thread. While what you wrote still disturbs me, I shouldn't have been so rude and I should have given you a chance to explain yourself rather than jump all over you. The piece of shit line was especially gratuitous and uncalled for. I sincerely apologize. -_-
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2011, 04:49:54 PM
By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.
I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit. I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.
Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret. Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.
Muttonchops is better anyways!
According to another GA, named Peck, who was just on CNN, JoPa and Sandusky always had a bad relationship. That puts a slightly different flavor on the procedings.
Not necessarily. Not enough's known but, as with the Church, you could have a feeling of personal disgust, and no time for the individual, while doing everything to 'protect' the institution.
As I say we still don't know enough, but I don't think that personal relations necessarily matter a huge amount.
McQueary didn't report to either University or State College police
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57326259/pa-top-cop-mcqueary-didnt-report-abuse-to-us/
QuotePolice: McQueary didn't report abuse to us
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. - Both Penn State's campus police and the State College police department say they never received reports from a then-Penn State graduate assistant related to an allegation of child sexual abuse against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.
Mike McQueary wrote in an email to a friend that was made available to The Associated Press that he had discussions with police after he said he witnessed a 10- or 11-year-old boy being raped in the Penn State locker room in 2002. McQueary testified in a grand jury investigation that led to authorities charging Sandusky with abusing eight boys over 15 years.
In the email, McQueary did not specify which police department he spoke to.
But a spokesperson for Penn State's campus police told CBS News that they never received a sex abuse report from McQueary. Separately, State College Police Chief Thomas R. King told CBS News that his department has no record of ever being contacted by McQueary regarding allged sex abuse.
The university also has its own police force. Penn State administrators said they were looking into whether McQueary contacted campus police. A university official also told CBS News Tuesday that, to her knowledge, no police report was filed.
The Nov. 8 email from McQueary to a friend said: "I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me."
McQueary is a former player and current assistant coach who was placed on indefinite paid leave last week after school officials said he had received threats. Emails sent to him seeking comment were not immediately returned.
He told the friend that he felt he was "getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right ... I had to make tough impacting quick decisions."
Speaking publicly for the first time Tuesday, McQueary told CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian that his emotions were "all over the place" and he was "just kind of shaken." But he wouldn't comment further on the scandal, saying "the whole process has to play out. I just don't have anything else to say."
McQueary breaks his silence
The grand jury report issued Nov. 5, the day Sandusky was charged with 40 criminal counts for alleged sexual abuse against eight boys over 15 years, goes into considerable detail about the March 2002 incident. McQueary was putting sneakers into his locker late on a Friday night when, the jury said, he saw Sandusky having sex with a young boy.
He left, "distraught," and contacted his father and then head coach Joe Paterno, jurors said. McQueary later met with athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz to describe what he had seen, the grand jury said. Curley and Schultz are charged with not alerting authorities to the report and lying to the grand jury. Paterno lost his job last week, but has not been charged and is not considered a target of investigators, state prosecutors have said.
As a result of the scandal, Curley and Schultz have left their posts, and university president Graham Spanier was also forced out of his job. U.S. Steel said Tuesday Spanier has resigned from its board, where he had been a director since 2008.
On Monday night, Sandusky said in an NBC television interview that he showered with and "horsed around" with boys but was innocent of criminal charges, a statement that has stunned legal observers. Sandusky's comments, they said, could be used by prosecutors trying to convict him of child sex-abuse charges.
The state grand jury investigation that led to Sandusky's arrest followed a trail that goes back at least 13 years, leading to questions from some quarters about whether law enforcement moved too slowly.
The grand jury report detailed a 1998 investigation by Penn State police, begun after an 11-year-old boy's mother complained that Sandusky had showered with her son in the football facilities. Then-District Attorney Ray Gricar declined to file charges.
Another apparent missed opportunity came in the 2002 incident that McQueary reported to Paterno.
So either McQueary is a giant dumbass, or we have some dishonest cops up there. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
So either McQueary is a giant dumbass, or we have some dishonest cops up there. :)
The options are not mutually exclusive either.
Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
So either McQueary is a giant dumbass, or we have some dishonest cops up there. :)
I hear he is pretty big dumbass
Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
So either McQueary is a giant dumbass dishonest, or we have some dishonest dumbass cops up there. :) , or both.
i have fixed your quote for you
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 16, 2011, 06:18:29 PM
Yi, I definitely went over the line earlier in this thread. While what you wrote still disturbs me, I shouldn't have been so rude and I should have given you a chance to explain yourself rather than jump all over you. The piece of shit line was especially gratuitous and uncalled for. I sincerely apologize. -_-
Homo.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:12:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 16, 2011, 06:18:29 PM
Yi, I definitely went over the line earlier in this thread. While what you wrote still disturbs me, I shouldn't have been so rude and I should have given you a chance to explain yourself rather than jump all over you. The piece of shit line was especially gratuitous and uncalled for. I sincerely apologize. -_-
Homo.
Agreed. He should now go all Timmay on your ass for thinking parents having sex with their children is ok.
Apparently an internet message board discussion lead the police to McQueary: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2011, 03:22:20 PM
Apparently an internet message board discussion lead the police to McQueary: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html
Woah, imagine what the cops could mine on Languish [/BB] :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2011, 04:49:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2011, 03:22:20 PM
Apparently an internet message board discussion lead the police to McQueary: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html
Woah, imagine what the cops could mine on Languish [/BB] :D
If coach K gets any hate mail they might be able to trace a likely suspect.
Syracuse Basketball assistant coach accused by two guys (relatives of each other) of molestation.
Boeheim backs his coach to the hilt. He better be right or he might be the next to be shown the door.
Was the Penn st. case the beginning of a cascade of cases that will reveal all of big time college sports as corrupt and riddled with pedophiles as the catholic church!? :blink:
I mean...we all knew they were corrupt monetarily...but this...it's just fucking crazy!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/sports/ncaabasketball/syracuse-assistant-is-accused-of-sexual-abuse.html
The guy says the abuse continued until he was 27, and no one but a family member corroborates the story. :yeahright:
My worry wouldn't be that there's loads of paedos in college sports, but if, as seems the case, they'll cover that up there could be other allegations that got ignored or swept away. In particular I'd be worried about allegations of rape possibly not being dealt with properly.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2011, 04:49:01 PM
Woah, imagine what the cops could mine on Languish [/BB] :D
We should be careful- Texas launched an investigation because a TX kid was allegedly assaulted when he was at PSU for the Alamo Bowl. :D
WATCH OUT, VM.
Here's ESPN's story; it looks like they need some programming with the NBA on strike:
QuoteTwo former Syracuse University ball boys say they were molested by associate head basketball coach Bernie Fine, starting in the late 1970s and continuing into the 1990s.
Police in Syracuse said they have opened an investigation into the allegations. And in a statement Thursday night, Syracuse said it has placed Fine on administrative leave.
One alleged victim, Bobby Davis, now 39, told Outside the Lines that Fine molested him beginning in 1984, shortly before Davis entered the seventh grade. Davis, the team's ball boy for six years beginning in 1984, said the abuse occurred at Fine's home, at the Syracuse basketball facilities, and on road trips, including the 1987 Final Four.
The second alleged victim, Mike Lang, now 45, is Davis' stepbrother and was also a ball boy for several years. He told Outside the Lines that Fine molested him starting when Lang was in fifth or sixth grade.
Davis said Syracuse head coach Jim Boeheim saw him in Fine's hotel room on several of those road trips, but Davis said he never told Boeheim about the alleged abuse.
Police stressed to Outside The Lines they are in the early stages of the investigation. Thursday evening, police told ESPN they were going to interview both men who made the allegations.
Both men spoke in on-camera interviews with ESPN on Thursday night. Both described what they said were encounters with Fine, including reaching into their shorts and rubbing their genitals.
"I didn't feel right about it," Lang said. "And I told him Bernie, 'please don't do that to me.' "
Fine is in his 35th season as an assistant to Boeheim, who came to his defense.
"I know this kid, but I never saw him in any rooms or anything," Boeheim told ESPN. "It is a bunch of a thousand lies that he has told. You don't think it is a little funny that his cousin (relative) is coming forward?
"He supplied four names to the university that would corroborate his story. None of them did ... there is only one side to this story. He is lying."
Kevin Quinn, Syracuse's senior vice president for public affairs, issued a statement on behalf of the school: "In 2005, Syracuse University was contacted by an adult male who told us that he had reported to the Syracuse City Police that he had been subjected to inappropriate contact by an associate men's basketball coach. The alleged activity took place in the 1980's and 1990's. We were informed by the complainant that the Syracuse City Police had declined to pursue the matter because the statute of limitations had expired.
"On hearing of the allegations in 2005, the University immediately launched its own comprehensive investigation through its legal counsel. That nearly four-month long investigation included a number of interviews with people the complainant said would support his claims. All of those identified by the complainant denied any knowledge of wrongful conduct by the associate coach. The associate coach also vehemently denied the allegations.
"Syracuse University takes any allegation of this sort extremely seriously and has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind. If any evidence or corroboration of the allegations had surfaced, we would have terminated the associated coach and reported it to the police immediately. We understand that the Syracuse City Police has now reopened the case, and Syracuse University will cooperate fully. We are steadfastly committed ensuring that SU remains a safe place for every member of our campus community."
Later Thursday, Syracuse issued another statement: "In light of the new allegations and the Syracuse City Police investigation, this evening Chancellor (Nancy) Cantor asked Director of Athletics Dr. Daryl Gross, to place Associate Head Coach Bernie Fine on administrative leave."
Messages were left for Fine, but were not returned.
"At this time, all we really know is that a terrible tragedy is unfolding for both the accuser and the accused," Cantor said in an email sent to Syracuse alumni. "I want you to know that we will do everything in our power to find the truth, and -- if and when we do find it -- to let you know what we have found."
Boeheim supported his longtime assistant, who he first met in 1966.
"We spoke to the people (Davis) asked the university to talk to," Boeheim said. "Not one person would corroborate his story."
Boeheim added: "Why wouldn't he come to the police (first this time)? Why would he go to ESPN? What are people looking for here? I believe they are looking for money. I believe they saw what happened at Penn State and they are using ESPN to get money. That is what I believe. You want to put that on the air? Put that on the air."
Davis said that Fine molested him at Fine's home, at the basketball facilities at Syracuse, on recruiting road trips and even at the 1987 Final Four. Davis said he was Fine's constant companion at all those places. He said Boeheim would come into Fine's room and see Davis lying on Fine's bed but never asked him any questions.
Davis said sexual contact with Fine continued until he was around 27.
Davis said he felt bitter emotions over the molestation as sex scandals have emerged in the Catholic Church and lately with former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.
Davis said he reported the abuse to Syracuse police in 2003, but that a detective told him that the statute of limitations had run out. Davis said the detective told him that if he knew of boys being molested by Fine at the time, that Syracuse police would investigate those allegations. Davis said he told the detective that he thought other boys were being molested but that he had only direct knowledge of Fine molesting him.
At the time, the Syracuse police chief was Dennis Duval, a former Syracuse basketball player. Duval, who retired in 2004, could not be reached for comment. He played at Syracuse from 1971 to 1974 and started with the Syracuse Police Department in 1978. Boeheim became the head coach at Syracuse in 1976, but began as a graduate assistant in 1969.
The statute of limitations in New York is five years from the last instance of sexual contact.
Outside the Lines investigated Davis' story in 2003 but decided not to run the story because there were no other victims who would talk, and no independent evidence to corroborate his story. In recent days, a second man, Lang, contacted Outside the Lines with information alleging that Fine had also molested him. Lang said he was inspired to talk after seeing news coverage of the Sandusky case.
Davis said he first met Fine in 1983 while selling candy in his neighborhood door to door. Davis said Fine lived about four blocks from his home. Davis lived with his mother and didn't have a father living with him. He said he soon began to regard the generous Fine as a father figure.
He said Fine was nice to him and invited him over to his house. Davis said that Fine eventually made him a Syracuse ball boy. Davis said he would travel with Fine to events such as the Big Orange Basketball Camp. Once, during the summer before his seventh grade year, he stayed over with Fine before the start of camp. That's when the abuse began, he said.
"I would go on recruiting trips with him, stay in hotels with him," Davis told ESPN in 2003. "I stayed in many hotels with him. At the (1987) Final Four. I would get there a day earlier than Laurie (Fine's wife) and the kids sometimes and we'd spend the night all alone in a hotel room many times."
He said that Boeheim knew he was traveling on the road and sleeping in Fine's room.
"Boeheim saw me with Bernie all the time in the hotel rooms, on road trips," Davis said. "He'd come in, and see me laying in the bed, kind of glance at me like, 'What are you doing here?' But he wouldn't say that. He'd just scowl. And I would look at him like, I'd be nervous. I felt embarrassed 'cause I felt stupid that I'm there. I'm not supposed to be here. I know it, and Boeheim's not stupid."
Boeheim denied seeing Davis in Fine's room.
"He makes the point that he was around and traveling with the team," Boeheim said. "Not that I know of. I never saw him. He is quoted -- (that) I saw him in the room. I have never been in Bernie Fine's room in my life. That is an outright lie."
A source told ESPN that Davis babysat Fine's children at one time.
"He did travel a few times, and it was known that he babysat Fine's kids on trips," the source said.
Davis said the abuse occurred several times at Manley Fieldhouse, where Syracuse used to play basketball games and the team had offices.
Davis' mother, Cathy Pitts, said Thursday she didn't know about any of the allegations until he did an interview with ESPN in 2003.
"I was very upset," she said of learning of the allegations then. "I wished I knew when he was little. I would have done something then. There was nothing I could do after the fact. He was older. He said he got it together, and he talked to a priest and got all kinds of guidance and counseling. He said he's fine. I believe him. He seems to be fine."
She said when Davis was young, he "was with Bernie Fine quite a bit." She said he traveled with the team extensively, though she said he did not go on trips when an airplane flight was required because he didn't like to fly. The 1987 Final Four, where Davis said he went with Fine, was in New Orleans.
She said she was unaware he was talking about this in recent days. "I really think he wants to be left alone," she said.
Boeheim said his longtime assistant "tried to help this kid."
"Bernie helped a lot of kids," Boeheim said. "He works with the Kidney Foundation. He works with Make-A-Wish. He works with three or four different groups. He has helped kids as I have. This is a kid that came up with all this stuff and it was all looked into for four months. The only new thing is his (relative) has come forward."
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2011, 03:22:20 PM
Apparently an internet message board discussion lead the police to McQueary: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html
Interesting just on how it describes McQueary's actions. It certainly doesn't say he went to the police in '02, but that it weighed on him, and once approach by police told his story quite freely. Also the comments about how the victims were quite reluctant, questioned whather the DA was serious about proceeding, and doubting whether anyone would believe them as opposed to "a revered figure like Jerry Sandusky".
The dmonizing of McQ by people like Meri is really unwarranted. As I said I hope I would do differently, but his reaction in that ciscustance is understandable.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 18, 2011, 10:38:51 AM
We should be careful- Texas launched an investigation because a TX kid was allegedly assaulted when he was at PSU for the Alamo Bowl. :D
WATCH OUT, VM.
The San Antonio cops did and it was a kid Sandusky brought into Texas for that purpose. Not sure what is funny about it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2011, 10:38:48 AM
My worry wouldn't be that there's loads of paedos in college sports, but if, as seems the case, they'll cover that up there could be other allegations that got ignored or swept away. In particular I'd be worried about allegations of rape possibly not being dealt with properly.
Yeah College Sports is an unusual place for Paedos to work. But all kinds of other crimes being swept under the rug is possible.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 18, 2011, 10:38:51 AM
We should be careful- Texas launched an investigation because a TX kid was allegedly assaulted when he was at PSU for the Alamo Bowl. :D
WATCH OUT, VM.
The San Antonio cops did and it was a kid Sandusky brought into Texas for that purpose. Not sure what is funny about it.
The hysteria is what's funny.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 11:07:06 AM
The dmonizing of McQ by people like Meri is really unwarranted. As I said I hope I would do differently, but his reaction in that ciscustance is understandable.
Nine years, BB. He was quiet for nine years.... Just not understandable to me, I'm sorry.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 12:18:31 PM
The hysteria is what's funny.
If hysteria is what is needed for people to finally stop turning a blind eye to this stuff then that is fine by me.
Besides if a police department hears about a crime that was committed in their jurisdiction they should not investigate? That is hysteria? Sounds like they are doing their jobs to me.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 12:18:31 PM
The hysteria is what's funny.
The sensitive sally's are gonna get all mopey on you.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 12:23:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 11:07:06 AM
The dmonizing of McQ by people like Meri is really unwarranted. As I said I hope I would do differently, but his reaction in that ciscustance is understandable.
Nine years, BB. He was quiet for nine years.... Just not understandable to me, I'm sorry.
But he did do something - he told Paterno (who as everyone mentioned, was like a God on that campus). Then he told school administrators.
But then as days, then weeks, go by, he realizes that nothing is happening. The university (which he works for) is doing nothing. And McQ isn't some kid, but he's still pretty low on the totem poll. It takes a lot of guts to go over the heads of your bosses and report this incident to police independently (when by law it was administrators who had that responsibility).
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 18, 2011, 12:30:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 12:18:31 PM
The hysteria is what's funny.
The sensitive sally's are gonna get all mopey on you.
Meh. This is a topic I care about and have talked about extensively on this board. It is not like I am just reacting to this particular incident. Further that is not evidence of hysteria at all it is just normal boring police procedure. Spinning to say 'OMG Texans are funny' or 'OMG TEH HYSTERIA!!!' is just stupid.
So easy. And I wasn't even aiming at Val. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 12:32:39 PM
But he did do something - he told Paterno (who as everyone mentioned, was like a God on that campus). Then he told school administrators.
But then as days, then weeks, go by, he realizes that nothing is happening. The university (which he works for) is doing nothing. And McQ isn't some kid, but he's still pretty low on the totem poll. It takes a lot of guts to go over the heads of your bosses and report this incident to police independently (when by law it was administrators who had that responsibility).
No, it takes a lot of humanity. It takes thinking of how many other kids could be going through what that boy - that he saw - went through. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for him. I hope he feels badly. I hope he feels immense guilt. He deserves to.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 12:39:12 PM
No, it takes a lot of humanity. It takes thinking of how many other kids could be going through what that boy - that he saw - went through. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for him. I hope he feels badly. I hope he feels immense guilt. He deserves to.
That's not humanity. That's maudlin.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 12:25:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 12:18:31 PM
The hysteria is what's funny.
If hysteria is what is needed for people to finally stop turning a blind eye to this stuff then that is fine by me.
Besides if a police department hears about a crime that was committed in their jurisdiction they should not investigate? That is hysteria? Sounds like they are doing their jobs to me.
It's a crime that they can't punish. All they're doing is doing some freebie investigation work for somebodies 'me too' multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Not everyone feels empathy at every moment of their life. Especially when they are not parents themselves.
Who's you hero Meri? Would you be able to destroy their life if you knew something very wrong about them?
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 12:43:27 PM
It's a crime that they can't punish. All they're doing is doing some freebie investigation work for somebodies 'me too' multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Why can't they punish it? Besides how many man hours are they really devoting to this? I am pretty sure they just have some guy reading up on it and writing a report. They are not putting a task force on it or anything. The reporting of it is probably more evidence of the hysteria than the actions of SAPD.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 18, 2011, 12:35:08 PM
So easy. And I wasn't even aiming at Val. :lol:
Liar! You posted right after me. This was a Valmy condemning post admit it!
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 12:39:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 12:32:39 PM
But he did do something - he told Paterno (who as everyone mentioned, was like a God on that campus). Then he told school administrators.
But then as days, then weeks, go by, he realizes that nothing is happening. The university (which he works for) is doing nothing. And McQ isn't some kid, but he's still pretty low on the totem poll. It takes a lot of guts to go over the heads of your bosses and report this incident to police independently (when by law it was administrators who had that responsibility).
No, it takes a lot of humanity. It takes thinking of how many other kids could be going through what that boy - that he saw - went through. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for him. I hope he feels badly. I hope he feels immense guilt. He deserves to.
It's really bizarre - you've posted far more vitriol directed at McQ than at Sandusky.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2011, 12:54:03 PM
Who's you hero Meri? Would you be able to destroy their life if you knew something very wrong about them?
Would that person continue to be my hero after I witnessed them doing what McQueary saw? Not only wouldn't he, but it would be damn hard not to confront him personally before I called the police.
Nine years. He had nine years to go to the police and say, "I saw this." He chose not to because it was easier not to. Easier for him, easier for Penn State. Sandusky is the real monster, but McQueary isn't far behind because he knew - saw it with his own eyes - and did nothing.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
It's really bizarre - you've posted far more vitriol directed at McQ than at Sandusky.
Sandusky is known to be a monster. No one questions that. No one says, "Well, you know, he did what he thought was the right thing." No one is apologizing for Sandusky, because no one doubts for a moment that that... thing.. is not worth the breath to do so. But McQueary... for some reason he gets a pass, and that I just can't fathom.
Do you forgive the mother when the father is doing this to his kids and she does nothing? Do you find reasons why it's okay for her to keep quiet? Or do you put nearly as much blame on her for not stopping it, not saying something, not doing anything to protect her kids?
Sandusky did the right thing. He had a dream, and he made it come true.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 01:08:08 PM
Do you forgive the mother when the father is doing this to his kids and she does nothing? Do you find reasons why it's okay for her to keep quiet? Or do you put nearly as much blame on her for not stopping it, not saying something, not doing anything to protect her kids?
You perhaps forget that I do a great deal of work in prosecuting domestic violence.
I completely understand why the mother says nothing, and don't spend much time 'blaming' her. There are plenty of understandable reasons why mom would keep quiet. To report it would immediately tear apart her family. It would bring enormous police and social services scrutiny. It may well bring extreme poverty as they suddenly lose the main breadwinner in the home. She may well believe she can get him to stop on her own. She may have her own faults or personal demons that she is afraid will come out. She is probably scared of personal violence at herself if she goes to authorities.
I want to encourage people to come forward. When they do come forward 'blaming' them for not doing more to stop it seems entirely counter-productive.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 01:21:19 PM
Sandusky did the right thing. He had a dream, and he made it come true.
:ike:
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 01:21:19 PM
Sandusky did the right thing. He had a dream, and he made it come true.
*golfclap* Well trolled, sirrah.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 12:32:39 PM
It takes a lot of guts to go over the heads of your bosses and report this incident to police independently (when by law it was administrators who had that responsibility).
Especially when the police are either formally or informally answerable to those same administrators.
State College, PA, as the same suggests, is basically a modern-day Company Town.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:23:18 PM
You perhaps forget that I do a great deal of work in prosecuting domestic violence.
I completely understand why the mother says nothing, and don't spend much time 'blaming' her. There are plenty of understandable reasons why mom would keep quiet. To report it would immediately tear apart her family. It would bring enormous police and social services scrutiny. It may well bring extreme poverty as they suddenly lose the main breadwinner in the home. She may well believe she can get him to stop on her own. She may have her own faults or personal demons that she is afraid will come out. She is probably scared of personal violence at herself if she goes to authorities.
I want to encourage people to come forward. When they do come forward 'blaming' them for not doing more to stop it seems entirely counter-productive.
McQueary had none of those to worry about, and still you stand ready to say, "Well, you know, he did what he thought was right." Sorry, no. Not okay, to my mind. He had a responsibility to those kids that he completely blew off. Sure, he felt guilty. BFD. He should feel guilty. He should feel ridiculously guilty.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 18, 2011, 01:28:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 01:21:19 PM
Sandusky did the right thing. He had a dream, and he made it come true.
*golfclap* Well trolled, sirrah.
I couldn't help it. She said that nobody said that he thought that he was doing the right thing, so I decided to fill that gap. That's how the free market works.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 01:31:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:23:18 PM
You perhaps forget that I do a great deal of work in prosecuting domestic violence.
I completely understand why the mother says nothing, and don't spend much time 'blaming' her. There are plenty of understandable reasons why mom would keep quiet. To report it would immediately tear apart her family. It would bring enormous police and social services scrutiny. It may well bring extreme poverty as they suddenly lose the main breadwinner in the home. She may well believe she can get him to stop on her own. She may have her own faults or personal demons that she is afraid will come out. She is probably scared of personal violence at herself if she goes to authorities.
I want to encourage people to come forward. When they do come forward 'blaming' them for not doing more to stop it seems entirely counter-productive.
McQueary had none of those to worry about, and still you stand ready to say, "Well, you know, he did what he thought was right." Sorry, no. Not okay, to my mind. He had a responsibility to those kids that he completely blew off. Sure, he felt guilty. BFD. He should feel guilty. He should feel ridiculously guilty.
No, buthe had a completely different set of worries. Just speculating here, but he was probably worried that by going over his bosses heads he'd not be hired back, that he'd be blackballed and never get another job in college football, and that for all of that he wouldn't be believed and nothing would happen to Sandusky anyways. All pretty rational concerns.
I'm not saying it was right. I'm saying it was understandable, and I wouldn't be so quick to judge if you haven't been put in a similar position yourself.
And I'm also saying that as a matter of sheer pragmatism I will applaud anyone who comes forward about these kinds of offences, no matter when they do it. Because talking about sexual abuse is
hard.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2011, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 12:32:39 PM
It takes a lot of guts to go over the heads of your bosses and report this incident to police independently (when by law it was administrators who had that responsibility).
Especially when the police are either formally or informally answerable to those same administrators.
State College, PA, as the same suggests, is basically a modern-day Company Town.
St. Peter doesn't call because they can't go. :(
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
It's really bizarre - you've posted far more vitriol directed at McQ than at Sandusky.
I agree with Meri on this. Sandusky I can at least rationalize as someone who has something wrong in his head. Assuming he didn't call the cops, McQuery seems to have acted either with extreme cowardice or indifference to abuse he knew was occuring.
Also, I don't see as going to the cops as going over my bosses head. There isn't a chain of command in the american workplace through which we report serious crimes.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 01:55:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
It's really bizarre - you've posted far more vitriol directed at McQ than at Sandusky.
I agree with Meri on this. Sandusky I can at least rationalize as someone who has something wrong in his head. Assuming he didn't call the cops, McQuery seems to have acted either with extreme cowardice or indifference to abuse he knew was occuring.
Also, I don't see as going to the cops as going over my bosses head. There isn't a chain of command in the american workplace through which we report serious crimes.
But would his bosses have thought of it that way?
And to excuse the child rapist, but blame the witness just causes me to shake my head.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
And to excuse the child rapist, but blame the witness just causes me to shake my head.
Let me be clear: I am not excusing the child rapist. As I've stated, he is beyond comtempt and should be anally raped every day for the rest of his life. That does not, however, give McQueary a pass.
I suppose it depends on your willingness to forgive moral cowardice.
McQ's best defense is that he thought his bosses would do the investigating and reporting ... but at some point he had to be aware that the only action they took was to take away his shower key, and "report" to the charity (who in turn did nothing).
Sure it is understandable why he didn't report - presumably he didn't want to rock the boat because it could cost him his job or even get him blacklisted. Anyone can understand that, but to understand is not to condone. It isn't very admirable to allow a rapist to walk free to rape again just because you are worried about your career prospects.
Why is it called "cowardice" anyway? :mad:
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 02:15:20 PM
Why is it called "cowardice" anyway? :mad:
QuoteAccording to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word coward came into English from the Old French word coart (modern French couard), a combination of the word for "tail" (Modern French queue, Latin cauda) and an agent noun suffix. It would therefore have meant "one with a tail" — perhaps from the habit of animals displaying their tails in flight ("turning tail"), or from a dog's habit of putting its tail between its legs when it is afraid.[citation needed]. Like many other English words of French origin, this word was introduced in the English language by the French-speaking Normans, after the Norman conquest of England in 1066.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 02:03:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
And to excuse the child rapist, but blame the witness just causes me to shake my head.
Let me be clear: I am not excusing the child rapist. As I've stated, he is beyond comtempt and should be anally raped every day for the rest of his life. That does not, however, give McQueary a pass.
Indeed. I would presume that Meri isn't wasting time blaming the child rapist as that is inherently obvious. The point of contention is how culpable we should view McQ.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 02:07:43 PM
I suppose it depends on your willingness to forgive moral cowardice.
McQ's best defense is that he thought his bosses would do the investigating and reporting ... but at some point he had to be aware that the only action they took was to take away his shower key, and "report" to the charity (who in turn did nothing).
Sure it is understandable why he didn't report - presumably he didn't want to rock the boat because it could cost him his job or even get him blacklisted. Anyone can understand that, but to understand is not to condone. It isn't very admirable to allow a rapist to walk free to rape again just because you are worried about your career prospects.
I agree entirely with this.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 02:07:43 PM
I suppose it depends on your willingness to forgive moral cowardice.
McQ's best defense is that he thought his bosses would do the investigating and reporting ... but at some point he had to be aware that the only action they took was to take away his shower key, and "report" to the charity (who in turn did nothing).
Sure it is understandable why he didn't report - presumably he didn't want to rock the boat because it could cost him his job or even get him blacklisted. Anyone can understand that, but to understand is not to condone. It isn't very admirable to allow a rapist to walk free to rape again just because you are worried about your career prospects.
This.
What about the possibility that he simply decided to stop snitchin'? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 02:03:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
And to excuse the child rapist, but blame the witness just causes me to shake my head.
Let me be clear: I am not excusing the child rapist. As I've stated, he is beyond comtempt and should be anally raped every day for the rest of his life. That does not, however, give McQueary a pass.
Funny - I think Sandusky should be jailed for the rest of his life. I don't know why you'd make the leap to him being raped. :mellow:
And maybe I'm okay with 'doing nothing' because I see it all the time. It is the exceptional person who speaks out in such circumstances, not the ordinary. Very few people talk about domestic violence, drug abuse, sexual abuse, petty thefts, wyou name it - when it is conducted by someone you know or are related to.
Everyone who ever calls the cops should get a ticker tape parade and get to meet Jackie in the White House. I agree that such people are truly exceptional.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 02:30:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 02:15:20 PM
Why is it called "cowardice" anyway? :mad:
QuoteAccording to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word coward came into English from the Old French word coart (modern French couard), a combination of the word for "tail" (Modern French queue, Latin cauda) and an agent noun suffix. It would therefore have meant "one with a tail" — perhaps from the habit of animals displaying their tails in flight ("turning tail"), or from a dog's habit of putting its tail between its legs when it is afraid.[citation needed]. Like many other English words of French origin, this word was introduced in the English language by the French-speaking Normans, after the Norman conquest of England in 1066.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice
We need a new word.
I wouldn't want to work for an organization that would frown upon reporting serious crimes to the police. I've quit jobs over a LOT less than that. McQ was an adult. He could make whatever cowardly choices he wanted but people WILL judge him.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 03:01:37 PM
Funny - I think Sandusky should be jailed for the rest of his life. I don't know why you'd make the leap to him being raped. :mellow:
Eye for an eye and all that.
Quote
And maybe I'm okay with 'doing nothing' because I see it all the time. It is the exceptional person who speaks out in such circumstances, not the ordinary. Very few people talk about domestic violence, drug abuse, sexual abuse, petty thefts, wyou name it - when it is conducted by someone you know or are related to.
I'm glad that that is a callous I have not developed because I would be afraid that it would make it easier for me to walk away, something I cannot do easily.
I've developed a callus btw. :blush:
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 02:03:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
And to excuse the child rapist, but blame the witness just causes me to shake my head.
Let me be clear: I am not excusing the child rapist. As I've stated, he is beyond comtempt and should be anally raped every day for the rest of his life.
I think you're overstating matters a bit. I mean, he did something bad, but it's not like he killed anybody.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 03:24:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 03:01:37 PM
Funny - I think Sandusky should be jailed for the rest of his life. I don't know why you'd make the leap to him being raped. :mellow:
Eye for an eye and all that.
Quote
And maybe I'm okay with 'doing nothing' because I see it all the time. It is the exceptional person who speaks out in such circumstances, not the ordinary. Very few people talk about domestic violence, drug abuse, sexual abuse, petty thefts, wyou name it - when it is conducted by someone you know or are related to.
I'm glad that that is a callous I have not developed because I would be afraid that it would make it easier for me to walk away, something I cannot do easily.
"an eye for an eye" is not something we practice in the West though. :mellow:
How is that being callous on my part? I'm just telling you whatI've experienced through 7 1/2 years of prosecuting.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
And to excuse the child rapist, but blame the witness just causes me to shake my head.
I'm not excusing the child rapist in any way shape or form. I think Malthus said it best. I think I can see where McQuery is coming from, and I find his actions deplorable. Obviously child rape is deplorable, but I find it much harder to understand Sandusky's actions.
Assuming of course all the allegations are true, and McQuery never went to the cops.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 18, 2011, 02:57:08 PM
What about the possibility that he simply decided to stop snitchin'? :huh:
I don't see how that has any relevance.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 12:42:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 12:39:12 PM
No, it takes a lot of humanity. It takes thinking of how many other kids could be going through what that boy - that he saw - went through. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for him. I hope he feels badly. I hope he feels immense guilt. He deserves to.
That's not humanity. That's maudlin.
Meri is a moron and I hope we hear of her suicide very soon now.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 03:24:15 PMI'm glad that that is a callous I have not developed because I would be afraid that it would make it easier for me to walk away, something I cannot do easily.
I'm curious, what's the most high-stakes situation where you've done the morally correct thing in the face of power structures and authority figures saying it's alright not to?
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2011, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 12:42:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2011, 12:39:12 PM
No, it takes a lot of humanity. It takes thinking of how many other kids could be going through what that boy - that he saw - went through. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for him. I hope he feels badly. I hope he feels immense guilt. He deserves to.
That's not humanity. That's maudlin.
Meri is a moron and I hope we hear of her suicide very soon now.
Uh, okay. :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 01:55:11 PM
I agree with Meri on this. Sandusky I can at least rationalize as someone who has something wrong in his head. Assuming he didn't call the cops, McQuery seems to have acted either with extreme cowardice or indifference to abuse he knew was occuring.
You didn't report it either, and I know you knew about it.
Not really, but I can as easily make up facts as you can.
McQueary
did something. He reported the incident to the people he believed he should (and was advised to) report to.
Now, it is easy and cheap for people to claim that he should have known that nothing was happening and gone to the police, but that, as far as I can see, is just a rationalization made by people who want to hate, and are too cowardly to reject the temptation to hate. In fact, McQueary didn't know that the abuse was continuing, didn't know that the investigation of Sandusky was scuttled, and didn't know that no real cops knew about what he had reported to a guy in charge of the cops.
In a perfect world, McQueary would have set some deadline for the arrest of Sandusky, after which he would have gone to some different police and tried again to get someone to investigate what he saw. In that perfect world, though Sandusky wouldn't have existed, so the point is moot.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2011, 03:46:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 01:55:11 PM
I agree with Meri on this. Sandusky I can at least rationalize as someone who has something wrong in his head. Assuming he didn't call the cops, McQuery seems to have acted either with extreme cowardice or indifference to abuse he knew was occuring.
You didn't report it either, and I know you knew about it.
Not really, but I can as easily make up facts as you can.
McQueary did something. He reported the incident to the people he believed he should (and was advised to) report to.
Now, it is easy and cheap for people to claim that he should have known that nothing was happening and gone to the police, but that, as far as I can see, is just a rationalization made by people who want to hate, and are too cowardly to reject the temptation to hate. In fact, McQueary didn't know that the abuse was continuing, didn't know that the investigation of Sandusky was scuttled, and didn't know that no real cops knew about what he had reported to a guy in charge of the cops.
In a perfect world, McQueary would have set some deadline for the arrest of Sandusky, after which he would have gone to some different police and tried again to get someone to investigate what he saw. In that perfect world, though Sandusky wouldn't have existed, so the point is moot.
:huh:
Wouldn't he know nothing (of any note) had happened as Sandusky wasn't put away and kept being seen on campus?
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 02:07:43 PM
McQ's best defense is that he thought his bosses would do the investigating and reporting ... but at some point he had to be aware that the only action they took was to take away his shower key, and "report" to the charity (who in turn did nothing).
Sure it is understandable why he didn't report - presumably he didn't want to rock the boat because it could cost him his job or even get him blacklisted. Anyone can understand that, but to understand is not to condone. It isn't very admirable to allow a rapist to walk free to rape again just because you are worried about your career prospects.
It may be more than that though. He may have concluded with some good reason that further action would be futile and only place himself in danger, including danger more serious than a mere firing. Keep in mind that he has received death threats for his role in providing evidence against Sandusky.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2011, 04:07:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 02:07:43 PM
McQ's best defense is that he thought his bosses would do the investigating and reporting ... but at some point he had to be aware that the only action they took was to take away his shower key, and "report" to the charity (who in turn did nothing).
Sure it is understandable why he didn't report - presumably he didn't want to rock the boat because it could cost him his job or even get him blacklisted. Anyone can understand that, but to understand is not to condone. It isn't very admirable to allow a rapist to walk free to rape again just because you are worried about your career prospects.
It may be more than that though. He may have concluded with some good reason that further action would be futile and only place himself in danger, including danger more serious than a mere firing. Keep in mind that he has received death threats for his role in providing evidence against Sandusky.
I dunno, is he getting death threats for 'squealing' on Sandusky - or, as here in this thread, for allegedly helping to 'keep it in the coaching family' until the grand jury?
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 04:14:34 PMI dunno, is he getting death threats for 'squealing' on Sandusky - or, as here in this thread, for allegedly helping to 'keep it in the coaching family' until the grand jury?
Or both?
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2011, 03:38:36 PM
I'm curious, what's the most high-stakes situation where you've done the morally correct thing in the face of power structures and authority figures saying it's alright not to?
I have called the police on a friend for abusing her son and daughter, for neglect, and for being a drug addict. I didn't risk losing my job, but I did risk losing a friend and all those who felt that I was wrong to interfere. I knew that her son would be put back into the system, something he deplored as he'd been there before, but it was the best option under the circumstances.
When the smoke cleared, my friend thanked me, the boy was angry with me, and everyone else melted into the woodwork. I don't feel proud for having done this; it still saddens me that it had to be done. But it did have to be done and no one else was doing it.
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2011, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 04:14:34 PMI dunno, is he getting death threats for 'squealing' on Sandusky - or, as here in this thread, for allegedly helping to 'keep it in the coaching family' until the grand jury?
Or both?
Well, then there's a fine calculation in cowardice. Which will get him the most trouble in the form of hatred and abuse - reporting, or not reporting?
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 03:29:55 PM
"an eye for an eye" is not something we practice in the West though. :mellow:
How is that being callous on my part? I'm just telling you whatI've experienced through 7 1/2 years of prosecuting.
I'm not saying that it is being callous on your part. I'm saying that it is
a callous that I'm glad that I don't have. I understand why you feel the way you do, and I'm sorry that it's what you've been exposed to. I can't imagine being in that situation, which is why I suppose I chose not to go to law school or be a cop.
I also understand that I am holding this man to a very high standard, but I think we should hold him - and everyone else - to that standard. I think that we, as a society, should expect someone to step in to protect those who can't protect themselves. I think that is something that our society today lacks. I want to hold myself to that standard and everyone else. And if I should ever fail like he has, I hope that I beat myself up over it every day of my life, just like I hope that he does.
Nine years of abuse. Nine years of kids being torn apart in a way that can only rarely be put back together. I just can't imagine allowing that to happen.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 04:14:34 PM
I dunno, is he getting death threats for 'squealing' on Sandusky - or, as here in this thread, for allegedly helping to 'keep it in the coaching family' until the grand jury?
Are the people who resulted in the current police investigation getting death threats? They too lived in the community and had charges brought that would bring bad publicity to Penn State.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 04:29:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 04:14:34 PM
I dunno, is he getting death threats for 'squealing' on Sandusky - or, as here in this thread, for allegedly helping to 'keep it in the coaching family' until the grand jury?
Are the people who resulted in the current police investigation getting death threats? They too lived in the community and had charges brought that would bring bad publicity to Penn State.
I don't know that their names have been publicized.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2011, 04:45:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 04:29:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 04:14:34 PM
I dunno, is he getting death threats for 'squealing' on Sandusky - or, as here in this thread, for allegedly helping to 'keep it in the coaching family' until the grand jury?
Are the people who resulted in the current police investigation getting death threats? They too lived in the community and had charges brought that would bring bad publicity to Penn State.
I don't know that their names have been publicized.
A quick search indicates it was Steve Turchetta, and a google query matching his name with "death threats" didn't turn up anything.
The lack of death threats was probably a different Steve Turchetta.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffastcache.gawkerassets.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F11%2F2011%2F11%2F906b4b4afd2fe2a44f75736ed1aaa349.jpg&hash=ee76ff411e26f0127ce9e0b6bf743340ea24412c)
:o
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 07:47:31 PM
:o
But can pike infantry hide the children better than lancers?
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2011, 02:07:43 PM
McQ's best defense is that he thought his bosses would do the investigating and reporting ... but at some point he had to be aware that the only action they took was to take away his shower key, and "report" to the charity (who in turn did nothing).
I think that the problem that a lot of people aren't seeing here is that it gets harder to go to the cops later if you don't call them right away. McQueary's first call should have been to the cops, not his father, which was a dumb move (and if you're 27 years old and have to call your father to ask what you should do when you see an adult commit a violent crime upon a 10 year old kid--and make no mistake, this was a violent crime--then I don't think that you're a coward, I think that you're an idiot). His father then compounded the dumbitude by telling him to tell Paterno instead of calling the cops. Paterno himself, upon being told, should have told McQueary to call the cops. If McQueary wouldn't call the cops, IMO Paterno, because he personally was not an eyewitness, was correct in informing his supervisors of what McQueary had told him instead of calling the cops. (It isn't clear to me, unlike some posters here, exactly how explicit a description of what McQueary had seen that he gave to Paterno, so it follows that it isn't clear to me how much, if any, Paterno watered down what he told the AD. IMO, Paterno was in error if he watered it down any at all, but there would seem to be no real damage done by it if he did water it down, because apparantly McQueary gave Curley and Schultz a explicit, detailed account.) Anyhow, I'm kind of rambling, but my point was that it's always easier to report something to the proper authorities if you do it right away. It gets harder the longer you wait. McQueary seems to have thought that he reported it to the right authorites (which he didn't--AR is right that there isn't a chain of command in the American workplace through which we report crimes--at least not violent crimes that don't arise out of the nature of your business. Obviously, if you work at a store and see a shoplifter, you get your manager involved instead of going directly to the police yourself, and if it's something like someone stealing office supplies, you go to that person's supervisor, because they're the representative of the agreived party, and it's up to them to decide whether they want to turn the matter over to the police--but the rape of a child is WAAAYY beyond that). At some point, maybe a month or two later, McQueary should have realized that nothing was being done, but then it's harder to go to the police. First, he'd get the questions about why he didn't come forward sooner. Also, he may have thought that nothing was being done because Sandusky had been confronted about the matter, denied it, and the authorites within the school believed Sandusky instead of him, and therefore reasonably may have thought it wasn't worth taking to outside police because they wouldn't believe him either--and the wait in reporting it to them would maybe have reduced the believability of the charges.
But it wasn't a violent crime, it was just sex.
Because unwanted sex (well actually just sex period) is never violent.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 09:16:03 PM
But it wasn't a violent crime, it was just sex.
:ike:
NCAA to investigate a lack of institutional control. :menace:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/sports/ncaafootball/ncaa-plans-inquiry-into-institutional-control-at-penn-state.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 11:15:53 AM
NCAA to investigate a lack of institutional control. :menace:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/sports/ncaafootball/ncaa-plans-inquiry-into-institutional-control-at-penn-state.html
Well of course. An organization as bereft of principles and good sense as the NCAA will definitely want to pile on.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2011, 04:07:21 PM
He may have concluded with some good reason that further action would be futile and only place himself in danger, including danger more serious than a mere firing.
According to the police he was quite eager to unburden himself indicating that he knew he should have gone to them earlier and felt some guilt in not doing so.
Given what we know know - especially with him putting out the line that he had stopped the rape and that he did report the matter to police - is that he knew he should have reported the matter to police but didnt not becuase he didnt think it would do any good but because he thought it might cause him some harm.
Timmay's hopes for 'merciless' signs(or whatever moronic shit he vomited up) at the 'shoe have been dashed. The University has been pounding respect and sportsmanship at the students and fanbase for days.
And signs are banned from the 'shoe. Have always been.
Idiot.
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 11:21:07 AM
Well of course. An organization as bereft of principles and good sense as the NCAA will definitely want to pile on.
Hate to agree with you, Neil, but in this case, you are correct. Bureaucracies always try to expand their scope of control, and the NCAA here is trying to create a new role of general law-enforcement as opposed to mere athletic rules enforcement. It is one more nail in the NCAA's coffin, and for that I am glad.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 19, 2011, 05:30:54 PM
Timmay's hopes for 'merciless' signs(or whatever moronic shit he vomited up) at the 'shoe have been dashed. The University has been pounding respect and sportsmanship at the students and fanbase for days.
So much respect and sportsmanship, they were courteous enough to give Penn State the win.
Stay classy Pennsylvania
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/alleged_jerry_sandusky_victim.html
Ballsy fucks. :lol:
Where there's smoke there's fire.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7267044/police-investigation-syracuse-assistant-basketball-coach-bernie-fine-take-weeks
QuoteSYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick says Syracuse police are resisting his office's attempts to obtain records in the investigation of Syracuse University assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine.
Fitzpatrick said he had to get a court subpoena Monday ordering police to turn over records. But he said that when the subpoena was served to the deputy chief, it was greeted with an obscenity.
"I've never seen this happen in my history with the DA's office," Fitzpatrick told the Syracuse Post-Standard of the refusal to share records.
ESPN reported last week the claims of two former ball boys that they were molested for years by Fine.
Fine has been placed on paid administrative leave by the university. In his 36th season as an assistant to Hall of Fame coach Jim Boeheim, Fine has called the charges "patently false," asked for a quick review, and expressed confidence he would be vindicated.
Bobby Davis, now 39, told ESPN that Fine molested him beginning in 1984 and that sexual contact continued until he was around 27. A ball boy for six years, Davis said in a report that aired last Thursday that the abuse occurred at Fine's home, at Syracuse basketball facilities and on team road trips, including the 1987 Final Four, when the Orange lost to Indiana in the national championship game.
Davis' stepbrother, Mike Lang, 45, who also was a Syracuse ball boy, told ESPN that Fine molested him starting when he was in fifth or sixth grade.
Davis previously reported his allegations to Syracuse police in 2002 and to the university in 2005. Police declined to pursue the case because the statute of limitations had expired, and the university could not corroborate his claims during a four-month investigation.
Davis had said interviews with four other people would support his allegations, but all denied any knowledge of wrongful conduct by Fine, according to the university.
After fifth-ranked Syracuse beat Colgate on Saturday, Boeheim steadfastly defended Fine.
"I've been friends for 50 years with coach Fine, and that buys a lot of loyalty from me," Boeheim said. "It should."
Students were mostly gone from campus on Monday ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday. A handful of protesters gathered near the main entrance and called for the elimination of the state's statute of limitations in child sex abuse cases.
"It's time to stop hiding behind the statute of limitations," said Richard Tollner of the New York Coalition to Protect Children. "Children must have a voice."
Prosecutions in New York state for felony sex abuse of a child have to begin within five years after authorities learn about it, or within five years after a child turns 18.
Paul DerOhannesian, defense attorney and former Albany County prosecutor, said the five-year statute of limitations has clearly passed for any alleged crimes in this case if they took place in New York. Any out-of-state incidents during basketball road trips would be subject to the laws of those states, which might not have the same limits, he said.
DerOhannesian said the prosecutor also can bring information and witnesses before a grand jury to do a fact-finding report and recommend changes in the law.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-11-22/11-22-11-Paterno-Discipline/51346682/1
QuoteEx-Penn State official saw Paterno's 'dark side'
By Kelly Whiteside, USA TODAY
At Penn State, Joe Paterno was larger than life, even cast in bronze. His power and influence was so great, no one dared to confront, and certainly not defy, the legend, according to a former university official.
During her four years as the vice president for student affairs, Vicky Triponey challenged that power and lost. Triponey held direct oversight of the Office of Judicial Affairs, the university's disciplinary arm. When football players ran afoul of school policy, Triponey said Paterno interfered with the discipline process.
After one such incident, Triponey said, then-president Graham Spanier told her, "Vicky, you're one of the handful of people who have seen the darker side of Joe Paterno."
MORE: Review some of the e-mails
MORE: Complete coverage of the Penn State scandal
In another instance, Triponey said, Spanier told her, "You can't expect to change the culture" and that in "40 years he never saw anybody stand up to Joe Paterno." Spanier did not respond to an interview request this week. Multiple calls to Paterno's publicist were not returned; neither was an e-mail request to his on-campus PR person.
Triponey's account of the pressure she faced sheds light on the influence the football program had on the university. This culture has now come under scrutiny in the wake of the worst scandal in college sports history.
Following the arrest of former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, who was charged with sexually abusing eight boys over a period of 15 years, both Spanier and Paterno were forced out. According to a grand jury report, Paterno and three other university officials failed to notify police after a graduate assistant coach witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy in the school's football facility in 2002. Sandusky has maintained his innocence.
Paterno is not a target of the investigation.
Athletics director Tim Curley and senior vice president Gary Schultz were accused of failing to report the alleged abuse to police and perjuring themselves before a grand jury. Their lawyers have claimed they are innocent.
Bill Asbury, who worked almost three decades at the university and preceded Triponey as vice president of student affairs, understands Happy Valley's culture better than most. He played football in college and for the NFL and is a member of the reform-minded Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.
"When we say, 'We are Penn State,' it's more than just 'We are Penn State and you're not.' It's also: 'We are Penn State and we are one. We are members on the same team, therefore we will do whatever it takes to protect the team, the culture around the team and university,' " Asbury said. However, he likely could never have imagined that protecting the program would cross the line to criminal behavior, as the allegations of a coverup suggest.
On Monday, when the school announced that former FBI director Louis Freeh would lead Penn State's internal investigation, Ken Frazier, the chairman of the special committee, said the group pledged "to get to the bottom of what happened — who knew what, when."
He also acknowledged the question that has troubled many: Why did Penn State's leaders fail to act? "People are asking completely valid questions about why actions were not taken that might have saved any of the victims from harm," said Frazier, the chief executive officer and president of Merck.
Did a football coach who spent 61 years at the school have too much power? Did protecting the program's reputation come at the expense of everything else? Was the school, run by leaders who have spent most of their professional lives in Happy Valley, crippled by its own insularity?
William Britt, a police sergeant in Philadelphia's homicide division, said he's not surprised by the alleged coverup. "I see how this happens (at Penn State). We lived it," Britt said.
In April 2007, as many as two dozen football players forced their way into a party at an off-campus apartment and assaulted several students at the party, including Britt's son, Jack, who was severely beaten. Six players faced criminal charges as a result of the brawl. In the end, many of the charges against the players were dismissed, and two players pleaded guilty to misdemeanor offenses.
In the middle of the school's internal investigation, Triponey said Spanier ordered her to meet with Paterno. Triponey said she had repeatedly refused to discuss cases with Paterno because she didn't want to compromise her impartiality. "The coach was not happy with that," Triponey said in a telephone interview with USA TODAY. "Many times he tried to insist upon a meeting with me, asked others to have meetings with me. Sent his wife (Sue) one time. In the middle of cases. This became a bone of contention."
"The coach was literally telling his players that they couldn't cooperate with judicial affairs or they would get kicked off the team. So we were going nowhere in getting to the bottom of things," Triponey said. "I said to the coach, 'This would be so much easier if you would tell your players just to tell the truth.' He was livid, and the message to me was, 'I can't do that. They have to play for me and I can't ask them to rat on each other.' The president also chimed in and said, 'Vicky, the coach is right. We can't expect the players to tell the truth.' So that's the environment that was underlying this whole debate about who's in charge."
Football won. "The sanctions that were issued which were nowhere near being in line what the code required for the severity of the offenses," Triponey said.
As a result of the school's inquiry, four key players were expelled temporarily for the summer semester but were allowed to return to campus early for the start of fall practice. Fifteen players were found to have committed violations. Paterno disciplined the entire team by making them clean up a section of Beaver Stadium on Sunday mornings after a few home games.
Britt said the school's handling of the case showed who was in charge. "The highest official in State College, Pa., is Joe Paterno. I don't care what anybody else's title is, he ran the show up there. And he knew about everything. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that it all comes back to JoePa," Britt said. "I got this from the (police) officers I dealt with. Basically they said it's a nightmare, any case that involves the football team."
Tom King, the police chief in State College the past two decades, said football players have been treated like any other students. "I never have experienced any situation involving Penn State athletes where the university has in any way attempted to intervene with enforcement of the law or to mitigate an arrest," King said.
In a 2008 segment on ESPN's Outside the Lines examining an alarming number of criminal charges involving football players, Paterno denied threatening the players involved in the April 2007 brawl. He also said, "I have never ever asked (judicial affairs) to change a decision in any way."
Asbury, Triponey's predecessor, said he can't recall anytime a coach asked him to mitigate a penalty on a player. Triponey said she was pressured by Spanier and athletics director Tim Curley to lessen the sanctions on football players. After meeting with Paterno and other officials in August 2005 to discuss Paterno's concerns, Triponey summarized Paterno's attitude toward student discipline in an e-mail to Curley and others.
Triponey kept records of all such correspondence. She wrote that Paterno wanted discipline to be left to the coach; that he believed the school's code of conduct should not apply to any events that take place off campus and that those incidents should be handled by the police and not affect a student's status; that the program should be closer to the bottom of the Big Ten in addressing discipline matters; and that the school should not inform the public when football players are found responsible for committing serious acts of violence.
Curley's response to her, via e-mail: "I think your summary is accurate." Curley, through a spokesperson, declined an interview request.
Triponey said she also received enormous pressure in a 2005 case involving standout linebacker Dan Connor, who was accused of making harassing calls to retired assistant coach Joe Sarra. One night after a football game, Triponey said Spanier and Curley came to her house because Paterno told Spanier that he had to make a choice between his vice president of student affairs and his football coach. According to Triponey, Spanier said that if he ever had to make that decision, he would side with his vice president.
In 2007, not long after the tumultuous case over the brawl involving the football players, Spanier made his choice. Triponey was forced to resign.
"I don't know what happened between Vicky and Joe, but no president, particularly Graham Spanier wants to be put in the middle," Asbury said. "I don't know who made the fatal mistake. Somebody made it, and she is no longer here."
The same week that Triponey left Penn State, the university outlined a proposal to revamp the Office of Judicial Affairs. One change: Rather than judicial affairs, coaches, as well as club advisers, would determine whether students facing sanctions would be able to participate in extracurricular activities, such as playing football.
Football won again.
Contributing: Steve Wieberg; Jon Saraceno in State College, Pa.
:(
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/22/8959190-report-2-new-cases-of-child-abuse-alleged-against-sandusky
QuoteOfficials with The Children and Youth Services in Pennsylvania are investigating two new cases of child abuse alleged against former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, The Patriot News reported Tuesday.
If the new allegations -- reported less than 60 days ago -- are found to be credible, it would the first known cases involving people who are still under the age of 18, the newspaper reported.
The state's Children and Youth Services only investigates reports of abuse if victims are minors. All others are handled by police agencies, according to Pennsylvania law.
Sandusky faces 40 criminal counts accusing him of sexually abusing eight boys beginning in the mid-1990s. Authorities say some assaults happened on Penn State's campus and were reported to administrators but not to police agencies.
Sandusky has maintained his innocence.
Hearing delayed
Also on Tuesday, a judge delayed Sandusky's preliminary hearing in the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa.
The hearing, set for Tuesday, was rescheduled for Dec. 13, according to court records. The change was made "to accommodate the logistical needs involved in the hearing," a posting on the courthouse website read.
Messages seeking comment from Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola and the state attorney general's office weren't immediately returned to msnbc.com or NBC News.
Amendola told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday that he was worried that there would be new criminal allegations against his client.
"My concern is, if they bring new charges based upon new people coming forward, that bail's going to be set and he's going to wind up in jail," Amendola said.
Sandusky was initially released on $100,000 unsecured bail, which means he didn't have to post collateral to be freed.
Until the preliminary hearing, prosecutors can seek to have bail modified by the district judge, Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin told The Associated Press. After that hearing, bail changes would have to be pursued by a county court petition, he said.
Scandal
Meantime, Pennsylvania court officials say all the judges in Penn State's home county have removed themselves from potentially presiding over the child sex-abuse case against Sandusky.
The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts announced Tuesday that out-of-county judges have been named to deal with any related court business in the Centre County case.
The sex-abuse allegations have stunned Penn State and altered the image of its legendary college football coach, Joe Paterno, who was ousted amid the scandal.
Hearings for Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, the two former Penn State administrators accused of failing to properly report suspected abuse and of perjury before a grand jury, was set for Dec. 6 in the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg. Both maintain their innocence.
Pennsylvania deserves to be purged with fire. :wacko:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/penn-state-scandal-jerry-sandusky-victim-mother_n_1108979.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2011, 12:36:19 AM
Pennsylvania deserves to be purged with fire. :wacko:
:mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2011, 12:36:19 AM
Pennsylvania deserves to be purged with fire. :wacko:
I'm confused. The article says that the school claims that it called the police immediately and ended Sandusky's visits once they had reason to suspect him. The mother is claiming that she took her son to this Gillum guy. There would be records for both, right? It seems ridiculously stupid for the school to lie about the actions it took since it will all be on record and easy to figure out.
And Tim, don't blame the whole state. This article is about Sandusky's hometown. Like Penn State, they're going to protect their hero over some poor kid from a broken home.
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2011, 07:35:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2011, 12:36:19 AM
Pennsylvania deserves to be purged with fire. :wacko:
I'm confused. The article says that the school claims that it called the police immediately and ended Sandusky's visits once they had reason to suspect him. The mother is claiming that she took her son to this Gillum guy. There would be records for both, right? It seems ridiculously stupid for the school to lie about the actions it took since it will all be on record and easy to figure out.
And Tim, don't blame the whole state. This article is about Sandusky's hometown. Like Penn State, they're going to protect their hero over some poor kid from a broken home.
The mother claims that the school only called police immediately because she insisted, repeatedly. The mother says the school suggested repeatedly that they 'go home and think about it'.
That kind of discrepancy would not be on any written record.
And fair point about College Station vs PA as a whole.
Tim needs to be purged with fire.
Why you got to be like that Neil? :sleep:
Also, more awfulness
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/sports/ncaafootball/for-victim-1-in-penn-states-sandusky-scandal-a-search-for-trust.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 09:29:30 AM
Tim needs to be purged with fire.
Heard an interview on local sports talk radio yesterday with Ravens broadcaster
Gerry Sandusky. Mostly, he and the program's host talked about the Ravens, but they did talk briefly about the fact that he, because of his name, is getting a lot of hate mail from people who have him confused with Jerry Sandusky. Bet that a lot of those people are Tim-types.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2011, 11:05:47 AM
Why you got to be like that Neil? :sleep:
Because you get way too worked up about these sorts of things, to the point where you can't even think. You're like a woman in this thread.
Sandusky arrested on new charges.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9277811-sandusky-rearrested-in-pennsylvania
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
http://enews.attorneygeneral.gov/uploads/Sandusky-Presentment2-12-7-2011.pdf
:yuk:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/139278153.html
QuoteReport: Ex-daughter-in-law says Sandusky abused her son
Staff Report
LATEST BREAKING NEWS
Poll: Nutter's rating up despite growing concern - 9:46am
Report: Ex-daughter-in-law says Sandusky abused her son - 8:27am
22 fugitives nabbed in annual Valentine's Day raids - 9:10am
Possible serial rapist sought in Camden - 7:24am
The mother of three of Jerry Sandusky's grandchildren says she does not believe it is safe for him to be around children and alleged he "inappropriately touched" her son, the Daily Collegian reports.
Jill Thomas is the ex-wife of Jerry Sandusky's son Matthew and the two are currently in a custody dispute over their children.
On Monday, the judge in Sandusky's sexual abuse trial said the former Penn State Football coach could receive visits from his grandchildren while under house arrest.
The Daily Collegian says that in a statement issued later Monday, Thomas said that after charges were filed against her former father-in-law, one of her children told her Sandusky had "inappropriately touched" him.
She said that while there was not enough evidence to charge Sandusky, a psychologist recommended counseling for him, the student newspaper reported.
"I was also advised at the same time that the psychologist who investigated the case had concerns about what had happened to my son and could not rule out that Jerry Sandusky was grooming my son for sexual abuse," she said in the statement, according to the Daily Collegian.
The newspaper quoted Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola as saying Sandusky "unequivocally denied these new allegations" and suggested that his client was being "dragged" into the custody dispute.
Catching up on this case. Nasty stuff :yuk:
http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/new-court-filing-outlines-locations-alleged-sandus/nLJXC/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
QuoteNew court filing outlines locations of alleged Sandusky sex-abuse crimes, ages of victims...
Feds investigating the cover up
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/experts_penn_state_investigati.html
QuoteIt's fairly clear the federal investigation into Penn State University won't be a duplication of the grand jury probe that led to more than 50 counts of child sex abuse charges against Jerry Sandusky.
Instead, federal authorities seem to be stepping into areas where the state attorney general's office hasn't gone.
This time, they seem to be exploring the possibility of a cover-up at Penn State, as well as possible bribes, fraud, or misuse of federal money, according to three former federal prosecutors who were asked by The Patriot-News to independently review the subpoena Penn State received Feb. 2.
And on the case is one of the most experienced and respected assistant U.S. Attorneys in the region, Gordon Zubrod. Among his high-profile prosecutions: the Luzerne County kids-for-cash case that involved two county judges, child prostitution rings and fraud cases.
"If you thought there might be a cover up, these are the type of documents you might want to get to know, one way or another," said Laurie Levinson, a former assistant United States attorney and current professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
The subpoena asks for:
- Payments made by university board members to third parties.
- Records of complaints, interviews or out-of-court settlements regarding Sandusky.
- Computer hard drives.
- Correspondence with Sandusky's children's charity, The Second Mile.
"The subpoena appears to be exploring when or whether there was any institutional awareness of Sandusky's alleged conduct at Penn State," said James W. Spertus, a Los Angeles lawyer and former federal prosecutor. "If, for example, there were private efforts by board members to settle claims before the matter became public, or there were reports to the board about the allegations, it could change the nature of the investigation."
Already, state prosecutors have charged two former Penn State officials with not doing enough when a report was brought to them in 2002 by an assistant football coach who said he'd allegedly witnessed something inappropriate in a locker room shower on campus.
The moral obligations of others have been questioned.
But those charges involve inaction, rather than an overt cover up.
This federal investigation appears to be going deeper.
"At this point, they don't have to have proof, just a theory," said Bruce E. Reinhart, former federal prosecutor who now works for McDonald Hopkins LLC. "And they're trying to prove or disprove the theory."
And while Gov. Tom Corbett said in two recent television interviews that The Second Mile isn't under investigation by the state — although his staff says he was speaking in past tense and meant "wasn't" — the federal subpoena is specifically looking at issues related to the charity where it's alleged Sandusky met almost all of his 10 accusers.
Lanny Davis, the high-profile Washington lawyer hired to represent Penn State in the wake of the Sandusky scandal, declined to comment on where the investigation might be going.
"We don't speculate on what prosecutors might be interested in, we just cooperation," Davis said.
Each year educational institutions like Penn State receive million of dollars in federal money earmarked for certain areas such as defense or medical research and educational programs.
If that money was used for other purposes, that could be a federal crime, Reinhart said.
"I'm sure they get all sorts of federal funding that flows into large state university's like that," he said. "As part of that sort of grant or funding, you have to certify those funds will only be used for the certain things. That could be why they'd be looking into interactions with Second Mile and Penn State."
Fraud could be a possibility if false statements were made to an agency like the NCAA, Reinhart said.
Something like, "We don't have any unauthorized persons using the training facilities."
Penn State has said that, as part of his retirement agreement, Sandusky kept an office and a key to the Penn State locker room. Sandusky left his coaching job as Paterno's defensive coordinator after the 1999 season. He was asked, after the 2002 incident, not to bring children with him to the facilities, but university officials testified before a grand jury that the ban was unenforceable.
If Penn State didn't disclose that to an agency who asked for such information, that could constitute fraud.
"The NCAA might say, 'We would never have allowed them to go to a bowl ... or get certain funding,'" Reinhart said.
And then there's a possibility of hush money.
"If they somehow diverted funds to keep victims, or others in the know quiet," Reinhart said. "They might be trying to figure out if that happened. ... That would explain why they'd ask if trustees have ever made payments on behalf of university."
All these things requested in the subpoenas — emails, complaints, payments — all point to an investigation that might have little to do with the alleged victims, Levinson said.
"That looks much more like the back end — how did the university react to what Sandusky had (allegedly) done?" she said. "Not investigating what Sandusky had done. ... This more about the university and the Second Mile."
When contacted, several people close to the alleged victims named in the state grand jury presentments against Sandusky said they had not been contacted or interviewed by federal investigators.
Those close to the defense for former athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz — both charged with failing to report the 2002 incident, then lying to a state grand jury about it — said the pair has not been subpoenaed.
Sandusky's attorney had no direct knowledge of the probe. The Second Mile and a lawyer for the late Joe Paterno received requests for documents and are cooperating without a subpoena, sources say.
At this stage of the investigation, however, that's not unusual, the experts said.
"This is definitely the first step," Levinson said. "The first thing that happens is the prosecution sends out a subpoena for all the documents they can find and then start in on key witnesses."
The state grand jury continues to meet on the Sandusky case, a spokesman for the attorney general's office said, even after two presentments have led to multiple charges against Sandusky.
Because grand juries meet in secret, prosecutors can't talk about what topics they are exploring.
However, Corbett, said publicly there is no indication The Second Mile is under investigation.
He also publicly defended his decision to accept more than $25,000 in campaign donations from current members of the Second Mile board while running for governor. That number balloons to $200,000 when former members are included.
Corbett also received about $38,000 directly from current members of the Penn State board of trustees.
A source close to the investigation has said that the informal requests from federal investigators began just days after Sandusky was arrested in November. The first known subpoena wasn't issued until Feb. 2.
:bleeding:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state.html
QuotePatriot-News Special Report: 1998 Jerry Sandusky investigator would have pursued dropped case if he had seen hidden Penn State police report
What's that? Oh the sound of silence on Languish and I just interrupted it. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 09:19:31 AM
What's that? Oh the sound of silence on Languish and I just interrupted it. :blush:
:yawn: When there is something worth saying, I am sure someone here will say it. Until there
is something worth saying, get used to being the only person talking.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 09:19:31 AM
What's that? Oh the sound of silence on Languish and I just interrupted it. :blush:
:yawn: When there is something worth saying, I am sure someone here will say it. Until there is something worth saying, get used to being the only person talking.
:hug:
I only did it because I got confused by the string of Tim posts but then realized they went back to December.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 09, 2011, 03:59:18 PM
at valmy:
exactly; the more one peels back the onion the more complex and smellier this whole case gets
perhaps there's no 2002 investigation after all, because the adminstration already knows that the ga's claims are likely true based upon what it learned and concealed in 98?
....
it sadly appears that this was, in substance, the case
Rasputin - what are your thoughts on what, if anything, either Penn State should do, or the NCAA should do, as a result of this cover up. Should they receive the death penalty / voluntarily suspend the football team? Should they just leave it to criminal charges for those who failed to report? Just fire those named and move on?
Personally, I can't see how any alumni could possibly support the football team until and unless some kind of conttition and changes are made, but I suspect the actual alumni feel differently...
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2012, 10:32:18 AM
Rasputin - what are your thoughts on what, if anything, either Penn State should do, or the NCAA should do, as a result of this cover up. Should they receive the death penalty / voluntarily suspend the football team? Should they just leave it to criminal charges for those who failed to report? Just fire those named and move on?
Personally, I can't see how any alumni could possibly support the football team until and unless some kind of conttition and changes are made, but I suspect the actual alumni feel differently...
first im an fsu alum not a penn state guy but we certainly had our own idolotry with saint bobby for a few decades
I have met spanner and curley and spent a weekend with curley who is a very gracious host (as was his wife)
with those disclosures out of the way, penn state needs to radically change its culture and the entire board and senior adminstation needs let go to allow the growth of a management philosophy that does elevate football and the JoePa brand above all else ; penn state needs a de-cougarization if you will
that being said, i dont see where the ncaa has jurisdiction to do anything; its rules were not to my knowledge broken as part of these crimes -- indeed the ncaa does not need to have a rule saying a former coach cannot sodomize boys on school property or that school officials shouldn't cover up crimes against minors, pennsylvania already has plenty of laws to address that misconduct
i dont see why the football program ought to be abolished but it may be that that is what's needed to change the culture but id leave that to the new board and new management
Quote from: Rasputin on July 13, 2012, 10:42:31 AM
first im an fsu alum not a penn state guy but we certainly had our own idolotry with saint bobby for a few decades
I know exactly which school you are an alumn of - but as a big booster of FSU I was just curious what your take was.
It seems to me you don't know any more than I do.
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2012, 10:32:18 AM
Personally, I can't see how any alumni could possibly support the football team until and unless some kind of conttition and changes are made, but I suspect the actual alumni feel differently...
Here's an interesting Op-Ed from an alum that thinks they deserve the death penalty:
QuotePenn State should get death penalty
Jen Floyd Engel, FOX Sports
Let former FBI director Louis Freeh tell you a story, one he detailed in his Penn State University-Jerry Sandusky report released Thursday.
There was this big, respected university with an iconic legend as its football coach.
It also had a pedophile operating in its program.
School officials knew this back in 1998 and covered it up.
They chose this "humane" route of covering up, turning their backs and protecting themselves rather than kids for more than a decade as boys went on being raped in the campus showers and on football trips. They did this because it benefited them, was easier for them and protected what they valued most — the football program.
Could former Nittany Lions coach Joe Paterno have stopped Sandusky?
"It's a very strong and reasonable inference that he could have done so if he had wished," Freeh said.
Freeh also detailed how facts and witnesses and evidence back up a conclusion that "in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University — Messrs Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley — repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse."
Again and again, the 269-page report by Freeh's group showed how Penn State officials had a "callous and shocking disregard for child victims." They lied, then lied about their lies. Even now, the loyalty to the lie about Paterno being a man of integrity (despite evidence proving he lied to a grand jury regarding his knowledge of the 1998 investigation) is galling.
Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University — President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno — failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.
The moral of Freeh's story comes courtesy of the AMC show "Breaking Bad," specifically Mike the Cleaner. It's not important that you watch the show. It's important that you understand the universality of the futility of half measures in some situations.
We can never make that mistake again. No more half measures.
Nothing is going to stop Penn State or anybody else in big-time college athletics from taking a route that is protect-the-brand, CYA and immoral. So we — NCAA, fans, impartial observers — must intervene.
Everything that has happened to Penn State so far is a half measure. And I do not believe in half measures for child rapists or institutions that harbor them. Neither should you.
What is a full measure, you ask.
The death penalty, as delivered by the NCAA, is a good starting point. I used to believe this was too harsh. After listening to those boys testify and then reading details in the Freeh reports like Sandusky having special seats to Paterno's record-breaking game in 2011 and an email from then-athletic director Tim Curley saying, after talking with Paterno, he no longer believed reporting Sandusky to child authorities was the right course of action, I have changed my mind.
The football program needs to go away for a while.
A big reason this was allowed to happen was because the whole economy of Penn State was football. If you take that away, they might learn. And since almost every illegal and immoral decision made was done with the intent of protecting the reputations of the football program and Paterno, the best punishment is one that severely diminishes.
Then, maybe, next time the evidence will not clearly show what Freeh himself called in his news conference Thursday " . . . an active agreement to conceal" by Paterno, Curley, former senior vice president Gary Schultz and former president Graham Spanier.
The hiring of Freeh is the first right thing Penn State did, and Louis Freeh delivered the goods. But this report cannot be the end, something we read and tsk-tsk and Penn State falls over itself apologizing while donations roll in and JoePa's letter to the football team makes the rounds.
"Let me say that again so I am not misunderstood: Regardless of anyone's opinion of my actions or the actions of the handful of administration officials in this matter, the fact is nothing alleged is an indictment of football or evidence that the spectacular collections of accomplishments by dedicated student athletes should be in any way tarnished," Paterno wrote in this just-released letter to players weeks before his death.
Paterno did not get it even as he faced death. As Freeh said, "The facts are the facts. He was an integral part of the act to conceal," yet the JoePalogists still do not get it. Neither does his family.
Again, half measures do not work.
A strong message needs to be sent to schools and other institutions — the Catholic Church immediately springs to mind — that such actions will have consequences. If Paterno's sterling reputation must be destroyed, if his statue needs to come down, if Penn State has to lose its football program for a while under the NCAA death penalty, if Spanier, Schultz and Curley need to share a jail cell with Sandusky, so be it.
What was most damning to me was when Freeh talked about the janitor who had witnessed Sandusky raping a boy, of how this Korean War veteran said this was the most disturbing thing he had seen and how all of them had been scared to report this for fear of reprisals because this involved a part of the football program.
"If that is the culture at the bottom, God help the culture at the top," Freeh said.
We live in a society nowadays without consequence — especially for the rich and powerful. Barclays Bank manipulates lending rates with impunity, the Catholic Church covers for pedophile priests for years and on and on and on. We live in a world of bailouts, weak apologies and half measures in response to immorality.
That has to stop now, has to stop at Penn State.
No more half measures. Only a full measure will do.
Take down the statue, take away the football and quit revering the man who stood by idly as boys were raped.
I think his argument is convincing.
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2012, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 13, 2012, 10:42:31 AM
first im an fsu alum not a penn state guy but we certainly had our own idolotry with saint bobby for a few decades
I know exactly which school you are an alumn of - but as a big booster of FSU I was just curious what your take was.
It seems to me you don't know any more than I do [about what to do to fix penn state's culture].
i fixed your quote
Quote from: Rasputin on July 13, 2012, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2012, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 13, 2012, 10:42:31 AM
first im an fsu alum not a penn state guy but we certainly had our own idolotry with saint bobby for a few decades
I know exactly which school you are an alumn of - but as a big booster of FSU I was just curious what your take was.
It seems to me you don't know any more than I do [about what to do to fix penn state's culture].
i fixed your quote
Fix gratefully accepted.
Paterno statue at PSU is going to be torn down. :cool:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg404.imageshack.us%2Fimg404%2F701%2Fstatue.jpg&hash=2144d284812d91ac017772780354811653affb76)
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2012, 06:57:20 AM
Paterno statue at PSU is going to be torn down. :cool:
That's too bad.
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2012, 06:57:20 AM
Paterno statue at PSU is going to be torn down. :cool:
Righteousness prevails.
Better be the Death Penalty, or at least a long TV ban! :mad:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477382/ncaa-source-unprecedented-penalties-against-penn-state/
Anyone want to predict what the "unprecedented penalty" would be?
I predict it will be:
Loss of scholarships
Bowl/conference championship ban
Significant Financial penalties
Possibly something out of left field
But not:
TV ban
Game cancellations
And that's probably it. The problem with TV bans is that they hurt innocent parties- i.e. the other team and the broadcaster suffer.
Same for game cancellations- it messes up schedules and affects too many innocent parties. It is my understanding that is the reason why the NCAA has avoided TV bans and game cancellations since at least the early 90s.
The only problem with my prediction is that it is hardly unprecedented. Just last year, Ohio State was hit with a scholarship reduction, bowl ban, and probation. :hmm:
Edit:
Apparently the unprecedented nature of the penalty is in the process of which it was determined, not the penalty itself. Though the penalty itself is "very harsh."
Can the Uni not voluntarily retire for a couple of years? I'd suggest they need to entirely rebuild their program after what's happened.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 09:27:46 AM
Can the Uni not voluntarily retire for a couple of years? I'd suggest they need to entirely rebuild their program after what's happened.
Suggest it all you want, but this is a university that preferred child rape to screwing with the game. Why would they now do this voluntarily?
Quote from: Faeelin on July 22, 2012, 09:31:22 AM
Suggest it all you want, but this is a university that preferred child rape to screwing with the game. Why would they now do this voluntarily?
You'd hope because they know they need to rebuild their program and because they've a sense of shame. Of course that could be optimistic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 09:27:46 AM
Can the Uni not voluntarily retire for a couple of years? I'd suggest they need to entirely rebuild their program after what's happened.
That happened once, to Southern Methodist University, except it was mandatory, not voluntary. That's called the "death penalty." The problem with that solution, at least in the case of SMU, is it that it is overly punitive. It took SMU nearly 20 years to recover from it. Aside from destroying the football program, the death penalty would really penalize the local economy. Penn State is located in a small rural town. Its football program brings in literally tens of millions of dollars to the local economy each year from all the football fans that come to the games.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 09:27:46 AM
Can the Uni not voluntarily retire for a couple of years? I'd suggest they need to entirely rebuild their program after what's happened.
Not sure I agree. You've got an implicated head coach who's dead. You've got an implicated president and AD who have resigned/been fired. What's the point of firing all the assistant coaches and telling all the players to go to another school when they've done nothing wrong?
Well that's why I think voluntary retirement would be better. If the uni could say 'we're going to change our entire program, this was clearly a systemic failure of our University and while that's happening we'll voluntarily retire but will look to re-enter once that's finished'. Why I ask if it's possible is I'm not sure how you re-qualify?
I don't know if the effect on the community should be a consideration though. That'll be an unfortunate consequence. But I think any of the other punishments looks pretty inadequate against institutional tolerance of child abuse. It'd be like letting the Christian Brothers continue to run schools because they did provide a generally extremely good education for thousands of poorer kids and only a few were abused.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 22, 2012, 09:31:22 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 09:27:46 AM
Can the Uni not voluntarily retire for a couple of years? I'd suggest they need to entirely rebuild their program after what's happened.
Suggest it all you want, but this is a university that preferred child rape to screwing with the game. Why would they now do this voluntarily?
Are you suggesting that the players were in on the kidfucking?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2012, 09:37:45 AM
Not sure I agree. You've got an implicated head coach who's dead. You've got an implicated president and AD who have resigned/been fired. What's the point of firing all the assistant coaches and telling all the players to go to another school when they've done nothing wrong?
Here's a section from the Freeh report:
QuoteAccording to the testimony of witnesses in Gerald A. Sandusky's ("Sandusky") trial in Centre County in June 2012,237 in the Fall of 2000, a temporary University janitor ("Janitor A") observed a man, later identified to him as Sandusky, in the Assistant Coaches' locker room showers of the Lasch Building with a young boy in the Fall of 2000.
Sandusky had the boy pinned against the wall and was performing oral sex on him. The janitor immediately told one of his fellow janitors ("Janitor B") what he had witnessed, stating that he had "fought in the [Korean] War...seen people with their guts blowed out, arms dismembered... . I just witnessed something in there I'll never forget."
On that same night, Janitor B observed two pairs of feet in this same shower at the Lasch Building but could not see the upper bodies of the two persons. He waited for the two to finish their shower, and later saw Jerry Sandusky and a young boy, around the age of 12, exit the locker room holding hands. Janitor B frequently saw Sandusky in the Lasch Building after hours, usually accompanied by one or more young boys.
Janitor B closely followed Penn State football, and knew Sandusky from watching football games. A senior janitorial employee ("Janitor C") on duty that night spoke with the staff, who had gathered with Janitor A to calm him down. Janitor C advised Janitor A how he could report what he saw, if he wanted to do so. Janitor B said he would stand by Janitor A if he reported the incident to the police, but Janitor A said, "no, they'll get rid of all of us."
Janitor B explained to the Special Investigative Counsel that reporting the incident "would have been like going against the President of the United States in my eyes...I know Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone." He explained "football runs this University," and said the University would have closed ranks to protect the football program at all costs.
This was, I think, a cultural and institutional failure that goes far beyond a head coach and President and AD. As Ta-Nehisi Coates put it Sandusky and Paterno didn't bring shame on Penn State, but the university shamed itself through a wilful blindness. I think they need to change the program, the priorities and the culture of the uni. Sadly there will be people who did nothing wrong who'll be victims of that, but that's nothing new at Penn State.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 09:48:15 AM
This was, I think, a cultural and institutional failure that goes far beyond a head coach and President and AD. As Ta-Nehisi Coates put it Sandusky and Paterno didn't bring shame on Penn State, but the university shamed itself through a wilful blindness. I think they need to change the program, the priorities and the culture of the uni. Sadly there will be people who did nothing wrong who'll be victims of that, but that's nothing new at Penn State.
Beyond the head coach, president and AD to whom?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2012, 09:50:33 AM
Beyond the head coach, president and AD to whom?
I've said I think they need a couple of years to entirely re-build the program.
There's two things in that quotation that strike me, obviously there's the janitors not reporting it out of fear and loyalty. But there's also that Sandusky seems unconcerned at being caught and walking out of the showers holding hands with his victims. The level of immunity he had, or of implied tolerance by the entire university, seems very high. He wasn't even terribly furtive about it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 09:56:07 AM
There's two things in that quotation that strike me, obviously there's the janitors not reporting it out of fear and loyalty. But there's also that Sandusky seems unconcerned at being caught and walking out of the showers holding hands with his victims. The level of immunity he had, or of implied tolerance by the entire university, seems very high. He wasn't even terribly furtive about it.
Except your example explicitly shows Sandusky did not enjoy implied tolerance by the entire university.
How so?
I don't agree with forcefully ending the program. On some levels I do think that should be done, but ultimately I don't know that it's the best outcome for anyone involved.
What I'd like is to see the State of Pennsylvania get involved. What I'd like to see is basically something similar to "receivership" for a municipality or a company that has gone bankrupt. I'd like to see the Governor of Pennsylvania appoint a total non-PSU connected person to be basically in charge of PSU for 5 years. PSU would still have a selected President, but the State appointed "receiver" would have to sign off on anything the President does. The State appointed receiver would also have summary dismissal authority of any employee at PSU who he thinks was complicit in the coverup, and would have authority to summarily dismiss any employee who is hindering efforts to reform the school to prevent any future coverups.
In addition to a top-level receiver who will basically sit on the University President's shoulder and have final say on all university matters, I'd put the athletic department into a separate receivership, to last for 20 years. The position of AD would still exist, but everything the AD did would be signed off by the athletic department's state-appointed receiver.
Additionally, a special office of the Pennsylvania State Police would be set up at Penn State. While the normal city and university police would had ordinary policing, this State police office would have sole responsibility to investigate any potential criminal actions by Penn State employees. All employees of Penn State will be required to sign an agreement stating any observed misdeed of another university employee will be reported immediately to this special State Police detachment. Any employee found to have known of a misdeed or crime who did not report it to the state police detachment will be summarily fired, and any contract employees will have as part of their employment contract a "claw back" provision which would allow Penn State to retroactively "claw back" some of their compensation if they are fired for this reason. This police detachment would be wholly independent of Penn State, but would give regular reports to the Penn State President and State-appointed receiver on its activities, activities specific to the athletic department would also result in a report being sent to the AD and AD-Receiver.
Every quarter this police detachment would conduct an "audit" of sorts of the athletic department, and grill the scholarship athletes on whether they had reported anything to a coach. If it is found an athlete reported any kind of inappropriate activity to a coach, and the coach didn't report it to the State Police detachment that coach will be immediately fired. The same goes if the athlete reported something to any school employee and that employee didn't go to the State Police.
Additionally, after the first year any employee who reports a misdeed to someone other than the State Police, even if it is to their supervisor, and even if that supervisor then reports it to the State Police, that employee will be fired. Basically it will be repeatedly drilled into the heads of all PSU employees for one year that any inappropriate activity must be reported to the State Police first and is not to go up the chain of command. By "misdeed" I mean anything that would be a crime or would violate school policy, not just stuff relating to child abuse.
I would also like to see the Governor mandate Penn State cannot sign any multi-year coaching contracts for a period of 10 years, and will be capped at total compensation for any coach (including head coach) at $500,000/yr for 5 years. After that the AD Receiver, at his discretion, may alter or eliminate the cap.
Additionally, the budget for the special State Police detachment, and the receivership in general will be 100% funded by Penn State. First, up to 5% of the Athletic Department's general revenue will be used to pay for the State Police detachment and the receivership. If more money is required after that, the remainder will come from whichever source PSU's leadership decides on (they can take more from the Athletic Department or can take it out of general revenue.)
The receiver will also be solely responsible for the litigation against PSU concerning Sandusky's activities, and his only goal will be to equitably settle the case and to minimize any litigation by entering into speedy settlements.
Finally, any after-expense profits of the Athletic Department, for a period of 20 years, 10% of those will go into a charitable trust that will distribute those funds to any charity in Pennsylvania, not associated with Penn State, that does charitable work with children. Additionally, over the 20 year period if Penn State has paid in less than $20m into the trust, it will be required to make up that deficit by whatever means it wishes. (So if somehow the Athletic Department isn't in the black enough to fund at least 20m/20 years, then the rest of the school will have to kick money in.)
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
How so?
How not? Janitor A didn't say "that's just Jerry being Jerry." Or "that's not very nice but a few kids' anal virginity is a small price to pay to uphold Penn State's image."
I'd also like to see PSU forfeit the last 10 years of football games, including all bowl games. That way Paterno will no longer have the major college coaching wins record.
There's no report of the crime Yi. When you've witnessed something like a rape I think tolerance is inaction, not your own moral position on it.
The janitors were in a far worse position, no doubt, but there's a pattern at the top and bottom of the uni of staying silent through whatever combination of fear and loyalty. That's why I think the problem was institutional and cultural. So the changes needed are far wider than just firing individuals.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2012, 10:43:34 AM
I'd also like to see PSU forfeit the last 10 years of football games, including all bowl games. That way Paterno will no longer have the major college coaching wins record.
Yes he will. He still won those games.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 10:52:59 AM
The janitors were in a far worse position, no doubt, but there's a pattern at the top and bottom of the uni of staying silent through whatever combination of fear and loyalty. That's why I think the problem was institutional and cultural. So the changes needed are far wider than just firing individuals.
Wouldn't covering your ass the the position of anybody in that situation? The changes you're looking for aren't to the institutional culture, but rather to Western culture, and they're not going to happen.
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2012, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 10:52:59 AM
The janitors were in a far worse position, no doubt, but there's a pattern at the top and bottom of the uni of staying silent through whatever combination of fear and loyalty. That's why I think the problem was institutional and cultural. So the changes needed are far wider than just firing individuals.
Wouldn't covering your ass the the position of anybody in that situation? The changes you're looking for aren't to the institutional culture, but rather to Western culture, and they're not going to happen.
That's not true. An assistant coach at Baylor squealed on the head coach's plan to cover up the murder of one basketball player by another.
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2012, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2012, 10:43:34 AM
I'd also like to see PSU forfeit the last 10 years of football games, including all bowl games. That way Paterno will no longer have the major college coaching wins record.
Yes he will. He still won those games.
Preposterous, I say otherwise, and I'm always right.
Wow, the rumors I've hearing about the punishment are crazy. If they're true this really is worth than the death penalty. :menace:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2012, 05:33:10 PM
Wow, the rumors I've hearing about the punishment are crazy. If they're true this really is worth than the death penalty.
What rumors are you hearing and what are your sources?
Quote from: stjaba on July 22, 2012, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2012, 05:33:10 PM
Wow, the rumors I've hearing about the punishment are crazy. If they're true this really is worth than the death penalty.
What rumors are you hearing and what are your sources?
Just a lot of stuff I see floating around the net, nothing I would consider reliable. Probably just panicking Penn Staters fearing the worst.
Stuff like a 5 year bowl ban and loss of all scholarships during that time period.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 22, 2012, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2012, 05:33:10 PM
Wow, the rumors I've hearing about the punishment are crazy. If they're true this really is worth than the death penalty.
What rumors are you hearing and what are your sources?
Just a lot of stuff I see floating around the net, nothing I would consider reliable. Probably just panicking Penn Staters fearing the worst.
Stuff like a 5 year bowl ban and loss of all scholarships during that time period.
That will just engender outrage at Penn, rather than cause a re-evaluation of their slavish devotion to sports icons.
Death penalty please.
Quote from: Jaron on July 22, 2012, 06:30:16 PM
Death penalty please.
:)
Make it easier for Ohio State in the Big Ten. PLEASE. :)
Worth than the death penalty?
Your stupidity in this thread is driving me crazy, Tim.
CBS Sports is reporting that Penn State will be fined somewhere between $30 million and $60 million. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027
:whistle:
Quote from: stjaba on July 22, 2012, 09:18:28 AM
Anyone want to predict what the "unprecedented penalty" would be?
I predict it will be:
...
Significant Financial penalties
I wonder if Penn State's insurance would cover that? I suspect probably not. Which reminds me:
I can identify one winner in all this mess: the lawyers of Central Pennsylvania. Between the Freeh report(it apparently cost several million dollars), the lawsuits that will be filed against Penn State and Second Mile, the criminal cases, and likely litigation between Penn State and its insurers over insurance coverage, this thing is going to be going on for a long time and will be lucrative for a select group of people.
Lawyers are worse than Sandusky.
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2012, 07:18:51 PM
Lawyers are worse than Sandusky.
They indirectly enable him and others.
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2012, 06:55:19 PM
Worth than the death penalty?
Your stupidity in this thread is driving me crazy, Tim.
What he said would most definitely be worse than the death penalty. Worth though? I dunno.
E: I don't think that 5 + 5 thing is going to happen though, or at least not the
complete loss of scholarships part. The bowl ban and the loss of, say, ten to fifteen scholarships per year for five years, a TV (revenue) ban, the fine, new NCAA oversight, etc, would wreck the program pretty well. The Big 10 could get in on it like they're sort of talking about after that and make sure PSU stays fucked for a while. I don't really have any reason for not thinking they'll take all scholarships, just don't think they will. We'll find out tomorrow morning.
Dude's comeback is epic! :lmfao:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEQJUO.png&hash=55b6b33f674a925343eda9acd06fcdeddba2a756)
All the anti-Paterno rage from the Timmay crybabies is hillarious.
Is that comment supposed to relate to Tim's post above it somehow? :huh:
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2012, 10:21:24 PM
All the anti-Paterno rage from the Timmay crybabies is hillarious.
Like hilarious, but different somehow? :huh:
Don't be rediculous.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 22, 2012, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2012, 10:21:24 PM
All the anti-Paterno rage from the Timmay crybabies is hillarious.
Like hilarious, but different somehow? :huh:
What's your fucking problem?
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2012, 11:33:05 PM
What's your fucking problem?
Your spelling. e2: I shouldn't say that. Neil is just doin his thing.
Anyway, here's this thing:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19633881
QuoteIowa president: Big Ten has 'jurisdiction' to punish Penn State
You wouldn't think it could get worse for Penn State with the NCAA president threatening to impose football sanctions that would make USC's look like a slap on the proverbial wrist. You'd apparently be wrong.
University of Iowa president Sally Mason told the Des Moines Register Thursday that the Big Ten also had "jurisdiction" to punish the Nittany Lions over the school's handling of Jerry Sandusky and would be considering sanctions of its own once the NCAA has announced its sanctions. The Register published the remarks in a story Sunday.
"I think you can expect when the NCAA is ready to talk about what the appropriate actions are with regard to Penn State, that we'll be ready to talk about appropriate actions with regard to the conference as well," Mason said. "We're watching the NCAA closely."
"The conference definitely has jurisdiction to take action in a case like this," she said. "Exactly what actions we'll take ... it's premature."
Mason is the chair of the Big Ten's council of presidents and chancellors.
Although the NCAA's punishment seems likely to consist of massive scholarship losses, a multiyear bowl ban and possibly the revival of a television ban, the Big Ten's potential sanctions are more nebulous. The league could withhold conference revenues, remove the Nittany Lions from its Big Ten Network or require additional scholarship losses or bowl suspensions to complement the NCAA's.
The Big Ten could also deploy the nuclear option: booting Penn State out of the conference entirely. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported last week that the league hasn't ruled out taking a vote on the school's continuing membership, one that would require eight of the 12 schools to vote in favor of Penn State's removal for the proposal to pass. The conference bylaws require any member that fails to show complete, accurate information during an investigation to "show cause why its membership in the conference should not be suspended or terminated."
(It's worth noting that the Big Ten subsequently issued a statement refuting much of that same Chronicle report ... except for the speculation over a Penn State vote.)
But for now, whatever its inclinations regarding Penn State -- and given Mason's tone and her position of leadership among the league's most powerful administrators, its inclinations probably aren't all that friendly -- the Big Ten can do nothing but wait to see what NCAA president Mark Emmert unveils tomorrow. Many observers said following Jerry Sandusky's conviction that the bad news had only begun for Penn State; that's a prediction that's so far proven all too true.
If only Phil Fulmer was alive today to see this.
$60 million fine, scholarships dropped from 25 to 15 for 4 years, no post-season play for 4 years. 1998-2011 results vacated. Probation and enforced reforms, all sorts of anti-freedomnism and anti-libertarinanism.
Drops paterno back past Bowden, Bear and others in wins.
Mike McQuery is now the last Penn state QB with a winning record! :D
Ouch.
Good.
Only people I feel bad for are the incoming freshmen who are now put in difficult positions through no fault of their own.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 09:18:49 AM
Only people I feel bad for are the incoming freshmen who are now put in difficult positions through no fault of their own.
Yep, and even though they are allowed to leave and play elsewhere immediately it is too close to the start of the season for there to be many openings on other teams. Hopefully they will have the chance to leave next off-season as well.
Though it is pretty hard to blame any of the current players, I doubt they knew much of anything about everything that led to this.
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 09:20:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 09:18:49 AM
Only people I feel bad for are the incoming freshmen who are now put in difficult positions through no fault of their own.
Yep, and even though they are allowed to leave and play elsewhere immediately it is too close to the start of the season for there to be many openings on other teams. Hopefully they will have the chance to leave next off-season as well.
At least they won't count against other teams scholarship limits.
This story has been a godsend for ESPN.
Will only the school's wins be vacated, or will the players' records also be purged?
I have never liked the expunging of past results - just seems so Orwellian to pretend that what everyone witnessed never happened.
Other than that - good.
Well it was really only recourse to punish Paterno that they had.
Quote from: katmai on July 23, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Well it was really only recourse to punish Paterno that they had.
What's the point in punishing the dead?
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 09:51:02 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 23, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Well it was really only recourse to punish Paterno that they had.
What's the point in punishing the dead?
This.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2012, 09:04:12 AM
Mike McQuery is now the last Penn state QB with a winning record! :D
Nope. You can't make things unhappen. That's how time works.
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2012, 09:04:12 AM
Mike McQuery is now the last Penn state QB with a winning record! :D
Nope. You can't make things unhappen. That's how time works.
:D
Seems that they lost more scholarships than I thought. :huh:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2012/7/23/3177329/penn-state-football-recruiting-impact-ncaa-sanctions/in/2304037
QuotePenn State received a penalty of 10 initial scholarships and 20 total per year. What this means is that Penn State's recruiting class size is restricted to 15 for each of the next four years, and that the maximum roster size for each of the next four years is 65.
FCS scholarship numbers.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2012, 10:14:06 AM
Seems that they lost more scholarships than I thought. :huh:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2012/7/23/3177329/penn-state-football-recruiting-impact-ncaa-sanctions/in/2304037
QuotePenn State received a penalty of 10 initial scholarships and 20 total per year. What this means is that Penn State's recruiting class size is restricted to 15 for each of the next four years, and that the maximum roster size for each of the next four years is 65.
Yeah it looks like many of the main outlets have now revised coverage of that bit.
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 09:51:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 09:51:02 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 23, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Well it was really only recourse to punish Paterno that they had.
What's the point in punishing the dead?
This.
Yep. His legacy is sufficiently tarnished without going back & altering the record books.
Arizona has immediate opening for all kinds of spots!
WTB DEs, LBs, another QB who can run, some depth on OL...can we just grab the entire Penn State roster?
Normally schools can offer a maximum 25 new scholarships each year and can have a total of 85 players on scholarship at any one time.
With the sanctions PSU can only offer 15 new per year and can only have 65 total. So it isn't really that big a change from what was originally reported.
Holy.
Shit.
You know what this means?
One of the most embarrassing, soul crushing, and program killing losses in Arizona history NEVER HAPPENED!
Arizona 1999: 7-5!
Arizona coming off a top ten finish in 1998 was ranked in the top-10 going into 1999. SI said we were going to win the national title.
We opened at Penn State, and LaVar funcing Arrington just took us apart, and the season was a huge disappointment.
Or rather, we thought he did - now it turn out that it never actually happened!
No still only won 8 games and Zona still full of fail.
Wyoming got a vacated win against an SEC team a while back, iirc. Didn't help, they still really lost the game.
Quote from: PDH on July 23, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Wyoming got a vacated win against an SEC team a while back, iirc. Didn't help, they still really lost the game.
That was Colorado. They had to forfeit a bunch of wins. They weren't vacated like this.
When it's vacated, the W is just zeroed out. They don't change the records of the other teams.
I'm curious about a couple of things...I thought in 1998 the police were somehow notified and did an investigation, but for some reason didn't pursue anything. In 2001 Sandusky was seen in the shower. With that timeline, why punish back to 1998? Was Joe Paterno supposed to lead a lynch mob against the guy?
Also, Penn State is a non profit educational institution, supported by taxpayers. Football scandal aside, it is apparently a good one. What good does transferring $60m from it to other charities do (like say, the second mile)? I know Penn State wouldn't do so because of the PR implications, but giving lower income Pennsylvania students $60m in scholarship opportunities to Penn State would seem to be a very solid charitable gift.
if I'm remembering correctly the DA's investigating early on ran into outright rudeness and rage from the cops at the idea of going after Penn State.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2012, 10:34:53 AM
I'm curious about a couple of things...I thought in 1998 the police were somehow notified and did an investigation, but for some reason didn't pursue anything. In 2001 Sandusky was seen in the shower. With that timeline, why punish back to 1998? Was Joe Paterno supposed to lead a lynch mob against the guy?
Also, Penn State is a non profit educational institution, supported by taxpayers. Football scandal aside, it is apparently a good one. What good does transferring $60m from it to other charities do (like say, the second mile)? I know Penn State wouldn't do so because of the PR implications, but giving lower income Pennsylvania students $60m in scholarship opportunities to Penn State would seem to be a very solid charitable gift.
The police were surprised that the '98 case wasn't prosecuted. I'm betting that Paterno influenced that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2012, 10:36:41 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2012, 10:34:53 AM
I'm curious about a couple of things...I thought in 1998 the police were somehow notified and did an investigation, but for some reason didn't pursue anything. In 2001 Sandusky was seen in the shower. With that timeline, why punish back to 1998? Was Joe Paterno supposed to lead a lynch mob against the guy?
Also, Penn State is a non profit educational institution, supported by taxpayers. Football scandal aside, it is apparently a good one. What good does transferring $60m from it to other charities do (like say, the second mile)? I know Penn State wouldn't do so because of the PR implications, but giving lower income Pennsylvania students $60m in scholarship opportunities to Penn State would seem to be a very solid charitable gift.
The police were surprised that the '98 case wasn't prosecuted. I'm betting that Paterno influenced that.
Only indirectly. The theme throughout the entire case was that the culture of Penn State and College Station was that the football team was sacrosanct. Nobody would need to influence the DA - the DA knew that you simply did not do anything that might bring the football program into disrepute.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2012, 10:36:41 AM
The police were surprised that the '98 case wasn't prosecuted. I'm betting that Paterno influenced that.
I'm betting that Paterno had suspicions going back to at least the early 80s about Sandusky but didn't speak up. Lets erase those seasons too!
Wtf does Texas a& m have to do with this Beeb?
Quote from: katmai on July 23, 2012, 10:46:36 AM
Wtf does Texas a& m have to do with this Beeb?
Wouldn't you like to know. :shifty:
So where is Penn State located? I obviously mis-remembered the name of the town / county.
State College, PA.
Quote from: katmai on July 23, 2012, 10:51:11 AM
State College, PA.
Ah. I didn't think I was far off. Danke.
I don't see how punishing the future members of the program is useful. They had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 11:10:14 AM
I don't see how punishing the future members of the program is useful. They had nothing to do with it.
Then the only answer is to do nothing.
Look - any time you punish anyone, or anything, there will be collateral victims. If I put some dipshit in jail it means he can't pay child support for his kids. If you fine a company you are taking money away from any expansion plans. If you take a drunk drivers license away it means he can't go visit his mother in the nursing home.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 11:10:14 AM
I don't see how punishing the future members of the program is useful. They had nothing to do with it.
In that case the NCAA should just not have rules because they could never enforce them. Cheating for everybody!
They vacated all those wins going back to '98. That's not nothing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 11:32:26 AM
They vacated all those wins going back to '98. That's not nothing.
Yes it is. It's almost the definition of nothing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 11:32:26 AM
They vacated all those wins going back to '98. That's not nothing.
That's really just symbolic. The penalties that hurt are the scholarship losses and the bowl/championship bans.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-donate-penn-states-150011470--ncaaf.html
And the Big 10 conference piles on announcing Penn State will lose "an estimated total of $13 million in league bowl revenue shares from Penn State, or about $3.25 million from 2012 through 2015."
Also they are relaxing rules on players transferring within the conference. I'm not exactly sure what this means though:
"Players who are eligible won't be restricted by another institution's scholarship limits if they choose to transfer, nor will they have to sit out a season as is customary for players transferring from one FBS program to another."
I assume it means schools can go over the 85 scholarship limit to take PSU kids, if that is the case it is brutal.
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 11:46:52 AM
Also they are relaxing rules on players transferring within the conference. I'm not exactly sure what this means though:
"Players who are eligible won't be restricted by another institution's scholarship limits if they choose to transfer, nor will they have to sit out a season as is customary for players transferring from one FBS program to another."
I assume it means schools can go over the 85 scholarship limit to take PSU kids, if that is the case it is brutal.
Yes, that's what that means. I also saw somewhere that they have an unlimited number of campus visits, etc, as well. The NCAA/Big 10 are simply making it much easier for them to get out of PSU and get to a place where they can actually play for something.
It means the other schools get to swoop in like vultures and take the cash. Or maybe just the conference. It doesn't say if they're gonna give it to anyone else.
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 11:10:14 AM
I don't see how punishing the future members of the program is useful. They had nothing to do with it.
Then the only answer is to do nothing.
Except all of the perpetrators except for Paterno are still around. Spanier, Schultz and Curly should be on the hook for this, and punishing the school should run a distant second to nailing their asses.
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 11:49:29 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 11:10:14 AM
I don't see how punishing the future members of the program is useful. They had nothing to do with it.
Then the only answer is to do nothing.
Except all of the perpetrators except for Paterno are still around. Spanier, Schultz and Curly should be on the hook for this, and punishing the school should run a distant second to nailing their asses.
I suspect that the NCAA has no authority over individuals employed by schools, but rather only over the school itself.
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 11:49:29 AM
Except all of the perpetrators except for Paterno are still around. Spanier, Schultz and Curly should be on the hook for this, and punishing the school should run a distant second to nailing their asses.
The NCAA doesn't put people in jail.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 23, 2012, 11:52:33 AM
The NCAA doesn't put people in jail.
Then why are they involved in what should be criminal proceedings at all?
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 11:54:52 AM
Then why are they involved in what should be criminal proceedings at all?
I don't think they are involved in the criminal proceedings.
QuoteI suspect that the NCAA has no authority over individuals employed by schools, but rather only over the school itself.
This. They can only punish the member institutions not individuals. Man would things be different if they could.
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 11:54:52 AM
Then why are they involved in what should be criminal proceedings at all?
They aren't.
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 11:49:29 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 11:10:14 AM
I don't see how punishing the future members of the program is useful. They had nothing to do with it.
Then the only answer is to do nothing.
Except all of the perpetrators except for Paterno are still around. Spanier, Schultz and Curly should be on the hook for this, and punishing the school should run a distant second to nailing their asses.
They are already facing charges.
The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) only has jurisdiction over athletics. The Penn State Athletic Department was completely out of control and they should be brought back down. I have no problem with the penalties, there needs to be punishment for past actions and deterrents to others in the future.
Also PSU's cut of the conference Bowl money is going to charity.
Quote
The conference announced the forfeiture of league bowl revenue Penn State would've received will instead be donated to Big Ten regional charities dedicated to the protection of children.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2012, 10:34:53 AM
I'm curious about a couple of things...I thought in 1998 the police were somehow notified and did an investigation, but for some reason didn't pursue anything. In 2001 Sandusky was seen in the shower. With that timeline, why punish back to 1998? Was Joe Paterno supposed to lead a lynch mob against the guy?
Also, Penn State is a non profit educational institution, supported by taxpayers. Football scandal aside, it is apparently a good one. What good does transferring $60m from it to other charities do (like say, the second mile)? I know Penn State wouldn't do so because of the PR implications, but giving lower income Pennsylvania students $60m in scholarship opportunities to Penn State would seem to be a very solid charitable gift.
Because Timmay-people love to make bad decisions, that's why.
Still, maybe the NCAA should take some scholarships from the police, too.
Ganim, the reporter who won the Pulitzer for her reporting of this shit, has broken down the sanctions pretty well:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_state_sanctions_what_they.html
QuoteThe NCAA imposed several sanctions on Penn State's football program after an unconventional investigation that relied heavily on the criminal case against Jerry Sandusky and the internal university report that suggested there was a cover-up.
Here's a breakdown of the sanctions and what they mean.
Vacated wins between 1998 and 2011: This means 111 wins are taken away from the university and longtime head football coach Joe Paterno loses his title as the winningest coach in major college football.
He had that ranking for just about eight months. His 409th win came a week before Sandusky's arrest, and about 10 days before he was fired by the university board of trustees.
Paterno is now 12th on the list, behind Florida State's Bobby Bowden and Alabama's Bear Bryant.
There are hundreds of players who were on the team exclusively during those years and now have no recorded wins.
The vacated wins start in the 1998 season because earlier that year was the first report of allegations against Sandusky that were known by Joe Paterno, athletic director Tim Curley, vice president Gary Schultz and president Graham Spanier.
A $60 million fine: It's the equivalent of one year of gross revenue from football at Penn State.
But the NCAA specifically said that the university can't take the money from other sports programs -- all except basketball are funded by football -- and can't take it from academics.
Penn State president Rodney Erickson has pledge to make sure that tax money, tuition dollars and donations won't be used to pay for any scandal-related expenses.
The fine can be paid over a five year period, which would mean $12 million a year.
Erickson and university spokespersons didn't immediately answer an email about where the money will be found.
The NCAA will take the money and put it into an endowment to help victims of child sex abuse.
Four years of no bowls: Two hours after the sanctions were announced, the Big Ten said that because Penn State won't be able to play in a bowl, it will give up its share of conference bowl revenue.
That's about $13 million, and that money will be donated, the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors said.
The Big Ten will also ban Penn State from participating in conference championship games.
Both directly affect the compensation of Bill O'Brien, who had in his five-year contract that he would get a bonus -- 11 percent -- for going to a bowl game and a bonus -- 8 percent -- for leading his team to the conference championship game.
Not going to a bowl game also keeps the team from 12 days of practice that they would otherwise get after its last regular season game.
O'Brien called the sanctions "very harsh," but said he would do everything he could to comply and make Penn State a national leader in ethics, compliance and operational excellence.
"I knew when I accepted the position that there would be tough times ahead," he said. "But I am committed for the long term to Penn State and our student athletes. I was then and I remain convinced that our student athletes are the best in the country."
Loss of scholarships, and possibly players: Twenty overall scholarships are lost for four years, meaning the team has only 65 instead of 85 to distribute.
All football players are given the opportunity to transfer and immediately be eligible to play at any other institution.
Players who already have scholarships can keep them as long as they remain eligible.
Five-year probation: The team is under probation for the term of coach Bill O'Brien's contract.
During that time, there will be an on-campus integrity monitor who will report back to the NCAA, and that person will sit on a compliance council made up of faculty and administrators.
Penn State must create a hotline for anonymously reporting violations.
And all student athletes and athletics employees will have to complete a yearly training course on integrity, ethics and reporting violations.
Any violations could result in an extension of probation or more sanctions.
Reserve the right to continue investigating: This wasn't a conventional NCAA investigation.
Instead of the typical route -- sending investigators to gather documents and do interviews, then give a written list of findings to the school, which has a chance to respond and an opportunity for a hearing -- NCAA President Mark Emmert said the executive committee decided to rely on the findings of the Sandusky criminal case and the internal university Freeh report.
Emmery said they chose that route in part because the 267-page Freeh report was more comprehensive than any investigation the NCAA has ever done themselves.
He called the decision and the sanctions unprecedented, but said the gravity of the case warranted it.
"The circumstances involved in the Penn State matter are unlike any encountered by the NCAA in its history," the NCAA said on a website dedicated completely to the Penn State scandal.
What victims think? Victim reactions are mixed.
The attorney for Victim 5 noted it is a heavy financial burden, but does nothing to directly compensate Sandusky's victims.
The attorney for Victim 4 said he was disappointed no victims were consulted.
The attorney for Victim 1 said the sanctions seemed "appropriately severe" and the $60 million dollar fine will be a good boost to charitable organizations that work to protect victims.
The Foundation to Abolish Child Sex Abuse said the sanctions send a "clear, unmistakable message" to any institution that puts its own interests ahead of children.
But the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) said it was disappointed there was no suspension of football. "Vacating wins is a hollow punishment that will be forgotten by the time the next season begins," it said in a statement.
Unanswered questions: It will become more clear in the coming days how this will affect the morale at an already-shaken Penn State.
Since November, those affiliated with the university have taken blow after blow to the ideological image they've had about Happy Valley.
Will they still flock to the stadium in droves for tailgating this fall? Will they fill the stands even with rising ticket prices?
Will prospective students decide they can get just as good of an educations at other state schools and still participate in the full football experience?
Will the university have to quit selling T-shirt and other paraphernalia touting Paterno's record, the team championships, and bowl wins over the last 13 years?
How long will football recruits hesitate about signing with Penn State?
And how many more days like this are ahead?
The spacing got a bit weird at the end there. Bolded a little of the fine info, plus the stuff about the players.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 11:56:08 AM
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 11:54:52 AM
Then why are they involved in what should be criminal proceedings at all?
I don't think they are involved in the criminal proceedings.
QuoteI suspect that the NCAA has no authority over individuals employed by schools, but rather only over the school itself.
This. They can only punish the member institutions not individuals. Man would things be different if they could.
That's what it comes down to. It's a criminal matter, there was criminal activity and there's no reason why the NCAA should be involved in something that isn't their business. The presumption that somehow the NCAA can hand out justice in this type of matter is silly.
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 12:21:49 PM
That's what it comes down to. It's a criminal matter, there was criminal activity and there's no reason why the NCAA should be involved in something that isn't their business. The presumption that somehow the NCAA can hand out justice in this type of matter is silly.
They spelled it out pretty well in their letter back in November:
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pennstatencaaletter2.pdf
They hit on institutional control and ethical conduct of their member institutions. Why wouldn't the actions of the Penn State athletic department be the NCAA's business? It's separate from the criminal proceedings.
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 11:56:08 AM
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 11:54:52 AM
Then why are they involved in what should be criminal proceedings at all?
I don't think they are involved in the criminal proceedings.
QuoteI suspect that the NCAA has no authority over individuals employed by schools, but rather only over the school itself.
This. They can only punish the member institutions not individuals. Man would things be different if they could.
That's what it comes down to. It's a criminal matter, there was criminal activity and there's no reason why the NCAA should be involved in something that isn't their business. The presumption that somehow the NCAA can hand out justice in this type of matter is silly.
To think that they can't is silly. Collegiate Athletics is the NCAA's business and the problems in the Penn State Athletic Department were unprecedented. They also made it clear that this isn't about the Sandusky crimes, it is about the 14 years of the Athletic Department hiding, lying for, and making excuses for a child rapist. If this wasn't lack of institutional control I would be curious to see what you thought was.
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 12:21:49 PM
That's what it comes down to. It's a criminal matter, there was criminal activity and there's no reason why the NCAA should be involved in something that isn't their business. The presumption that somehow the NCAA can hand out justice in this type of matter is silly.
They have to be seen to do something though. It's a PR thing for the Tims and sbrs of the world.
Although, if they hadn't have acted, it's possible that Congress might have gotten involved. The last thing the NCAA needs is more scrutiny on all their theft and graft.
Wisconsin is licking its chops for upcoming year. No Ohio State and Penn State in contention in the Leaders (ugh) Division? 3 trash teams left? Bucky Badger is getting the rape van ready.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2012, 01:07:49 PM
Wisconsin is licking its chops for upcoming year. No Ohio State and Penn State in contention in the Leaders (ugh) Division? 3 trash teams left? Bucky Badger is getting the rape van ready.
Surely with Urban Meyer Brutus will be invincible.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 01:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2012, 01:07:49 PM
Wisconsin is licking its chops for upcoming year. No Ohio State and Penn State in contention in the Leaders (ugh) Division? 3 trash teams left? Bucky Badger is getting the rape van ready.
Surely with Urban Meyer Brutus will be invincible.
One year with no postseason.
After that, URBAN UBER ALLES.
Quote from: frunk on July 23, 2012, 12:21:49 PM
That's what it comes down to. It's a criminal matter, there was criminal activity and there's no reason why the NCAA should be involved in something that isn't their business. The presumption that somehow the NCAA can hand out justice in this type of matter is silly.
What exactly is not their business? Their authority seems pretty vague and broad to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 09:48:15 AM
This was, I think, a cultural and institutional failure that goes far beyond a head coach and President and AD. As Ta-Nehisi Coates put it Sandusky and Paterno didn't bring shame on Penn State, but the university shamed itself through a wilful blindness. I think they need to change the program, the priorities and the culture of the uni. Sadly there will be people who did nothing wrong who'll be victims of that, but that's nothing new at Penn State.
I made this same argument, based on the same evidence, some pages back, so I'll agree with you that it says a lot about the culture at PSU's athletic department, and it should shame the administration into suspending the program for at least a year, to conduct a review and retrospection before performing a "restart."
Something like a "safety stand down" in the military or at a coal mine, but longer and more introspective.
Not gonna happen, though. The rot is too deep.
:huh:
Mob justice remains an oxymoron. A process in which the NCAA convenes an investigation, does not advise the defendant of the charges, fails to articulate its jurisdiction to address issues which never affected the eligibility of a player to be on the field, and then renders judgment without ever affording the defendant the opportunity to respond to anything, is, by definition, not due process.
When we deny the despicable due process we erode the guaranty that it will be there to protect the innocent. We step closer to mob rule. Group think exacerbated the problems at penn state. The mob remains, on the whole, intemperate, prone to error, and fickle.
We gave himmler and Speer the fundamental right to due process but we gleefully laugh at denying it to penn state. Perhaps this result was the right result but it was not just. Justice comes from a process that insures fundamental fairness -- justice is not and can never be a mere result.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 01:56:12 PM
We gave himmler and Speer the fundamental right to due process but we gleefully laugh at denying it to penn state.
Well the NCAA might have denied it to them.
But why the shock and awe? What is the difference between this and what the NCAA did to SMU or USC or anybody else? And I thought they had vague jurisdiction over "institutional control' and 'ethical behavior'. But I have not read the NCAA charter or whatever it is that is the source of their authority.
And in any case it will be the least of their problems. The coming Civil Suits are what is going to smash them.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 01:56:12 PM
:huh:
Mob justice remains an oxymoron. A process in which the NCAA convenes an investigation, does not advise the defendant of the charges, fails to articulate its jurisdiction to address issues which never affected the eligibility of a player to be on the field, and then renders judgment without ever affording the defendant the opportunity to respond to anything, is, by definition, not due process.
When we deny the despicable due process we erode the guaranty that it will be there to protect the innocent. We step closer to mob rule. Group think exacerbated the problems at penn state. The mob remains, on the whole, intemperate, prone to error, and fickle.
We gave himmler and Speer the fundamental right to due process but we gleefully laugh at denying it to penn state. Perhaps this result was the right result but it was not just. Justice comes from a process that insures fundamental fairness -- justice is not and can never be a mere result.
:huh:
I'm pretty sure PSU knew "what the charges" were. It's jurisdiction has been spelled out. The ability to "respond to charges" is a part of the court process, but is not necessarily a part of every disciplinary action. If you're caught stealing from your employer you generally don't get a chance to plead your case before you're fired.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 01:58:45 PMThe coming Civil Suits are what is going to smash them.
Definitely. Now that there is evidence for it I'm sure every lawyer in PA is calling the victims.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2012, 01:31:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2012, 09:48:15 AM
This was, I think, a cultural and institutional failure that goes far beyond a head coach and President and AD. As Ta-Nehisi Coates put it Sandusky and Paterno didn't bring shame on Penn State, but the university shamed itself through a wilful blindness. I think they need to change the program, the priorities and the culture of the uni. Sadly there will be people who did nothing wrong who'll be victims of that, but that's nothing new at Penn State.
I made this same argument, based on the same evidence, some pages back, so I'll agree with you that it says a lot about the culture at PSU's athletic department, and it should shame the administration into suspending the program for at least a year, to conduct a review and retrospection before performing a "restart."
Something like a "safety stand down" in the military or at a coal mine, but longer and more introspective.
Not gonna happen, though. The rot is too deep.
It'll more likely just create a feeling of victimization and anger.
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 01:56:12 PM
:huh:
Mob justice remains an oxymoron. A process in which the NCAA convenes an investigation, does not advise the defendant of the charges, fails to articulate its jurisdiction to address issues which never affected the eligibility of a player to be on the field, and then renders judgment without ever affording the defendant the opportunity to respond to anything, is, by definition, not due process.
When we deny the despicable due process we erode the guaranty that it will be there to protect the innocent. We step closer to mob rule. Group think exacerbated the problems at penn state. The mob remains, on the whole, intemperate, prone to error, and fickle.
We gave himmler and Speer the fundamental right to due process but we gleefully laugh at denying it to penn state. Perhaps this result was the right result but it was not just. Justice comes from a process that insures fundamental fairness -- justice is not and can never be a mere result.
:huh:
I'm pretty sure PSU knew "what the charges" were. It's jurisdiction has been spelled out. The ability to "respond to charges" is a part of the court process, but is not necessarily a part of every disciplinary action. If you're caught stealing from your employer you generally don't get a chance to plead your case before you're fired.
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
Your example of an employers contractual right to fire for cause is problematic in an number of ways. First, it is not an administrative decision akin to the one made here. Second, and taking us off topic, if an employer does fire for cause without the employee getting a chance to explain they are just asking for a world of hurt in the form of damages and likely punative damages.
The NCAA based its punishments on the Freeh report. That report was done by PSU and PSU accepted all of its findings. Would PSU then come back and say that those things are now not true?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
But NCAA punishments have always had these qualities. Why was it only denied in this particular case?
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 03:21:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
But NCAA punishments have always had these qualities. Why was it only denied in this particular case?
I am not familiar with other cases Valmy. If this how things are regularly done then there is a fairly considerable systemic problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
Your example of an employers contractual right to fire for cause is problematic in an number of ways. First, it is not an administrative decision akin to the one made here. Second, and taking us off topic, if an employer does fire for cause without the employee getting a chance to explain they are just asking for a world of hurt in the form of damages and likely punative damages.
Why does everything need to be based on a legal process? I think the process is, in general, time consuming, expensive, and often unjust. A group of colleges get together to compete in sports, one of them apparently tolerates raping boys in its showers to keep a competitive edge--why do you need a lengthy process with a bunch of lawyers for the rest of them to say, "if you want to keep competing with us, you need to do x,y, and z"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
I am not familiar with other cases Valmy. If this how things are regularly done then there is a fairly considerable systemic problem.
Wait you are claiming the process is unfair in this particular case when you have no knowledge of how the process normally works? Surely that would be important if you are going to declare one instance unfair.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2012, 03:25:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
Your example of an employers contractual right to fire for cause is problematic in an number of ways. First, it is not an administrative decision akin to the one made here. Second, and taking us off topic, if an employer does fire for cause without the employee getting a chance to explain they are just asking for a world of hurt in the form of damages and likely punative damages.
Why does everything need to be based on a legal process? I think the process is, in general, time consuming, expensive, and often unjust. A group of colleges get together to compete in sports, one of them apparently tolerates raping boys in its showers to keep a competitive edge--why do you need a lengthy process with a bunch of lawyers for the rest of them to say, "if you want to keep competing with us, you need to do x,y, and z"?
It is easy to ignore due process when one wishes to achieve a quick decision that would meet the approval of the vast majority. Due process is hard. It is also the most just process we have been able to devise. If you want quick and expedient by all means ignore due process. If you want good sound decision making you do so at your peril.
Based on what Valmy said, it seems this is not the first time. I surmise from that fact that the NCAA proceeds in this way because it can. That does not make it right.
The other issue your question raises is an interesting one and that is to what extent should a domestic administrative process (ie one that does not derive its authority from statute) be required to comply with fundamental principles of procedural fairness. Its a good question. From a legal point of view a suppose the answer is there is no way to force them (going back to my observation that they ignore procedural fairness because they can) but if a domestic administrative body wishes to make good decisions then, again, they ignore procedural fairness at their peril and perhaps the members who make up the NCAA might be concerned about that.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 03:28:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
I am not familiar with other cases Valmy. If this how things are regularly done then there is a fairly considerable systemic problem.
Wait you are claiming the process is unfair in this particular case when you have no knowledge of how the process normally works? Surely that would be important if you are going to declare one instance unfair.
Why, procedural fairness is not an exercise of relative comparisons. There are fundamental principles of procedural fairness which, if absent, render the process unfair.
The NCAA is a completely voluntary association - PSU had as much (honestly likely much more say) in how it runs and its processes as any other institution that is a member.
The procedures they have defined have been defined by the very members that make up the NCAA. How can you just state they are unfair on the basis that they don't meet some legal standard? If legal standards were adequate to meet the needs of the member institutions of the NCAA, there would never be any reason to form the NCAA in the first place.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 01:56:12 PM
:huh:
Mob justice remains an oxymoron. A process in which the NCAA convenes an investigation, does not advise the defendant of the charges, fails to articulate its jurisdiction to address issues which never affected the eligibility of a player to be on the field, and then renders judgment without ever affording the defendant the opportunity to respond to anything, is, by definition, not due process.
When we deny the despicable due process we erode the guaranty that it will be there to protect the innocent. We step closer to mob rule. Group think exacerbated the problems at penn state. The mob remains, on the whole, intemperate, prone to error, and fickle.
We gave himmler and Speer the fundamental right to due process but we gleefully laugh at denying it to penn state. Perhaps this result was the right result but it was not just. Justice comes from a process that insures fundamental fairness -- justice is not and can never be a mere result.
:huh:
I'm pretty sure PSU knew "what the charges" were. It's jurisdiction has been spelled out. The ability to "respond to charges" is a part of the court process, but is not necessarily a part of every disciplinary action. If you're caught stealing from your employer you generally don't get a chance to plead your case before you're fired.
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
Your example of an employers contractual right to fire for cause is problematic in an number of ways. First, it is not an administrative decision akin to the one made here. Second, and taking us off topic, if an employer does fire for cause without the employee getting a chance to explain they are just asking for a world of hurt in the form of damages and likely punative damages.
:huh:
Administrative Law is the law dealing with the operations of governments and governmental agencies. The NCAA is neither.
PSU had been put on notice months ago that the NCAA wanted to know what ws happening - that's what led to PSU commissioning the FReeh Report. The Freeh Report was commissioned by PSU, and PSU said they accepted all of its findings.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:31:33 PM
It is easy to ignore due process when one wishes to achieve a quick decision that would meet the approval of the vast majority. Due process is hard. It is also the most just process we have been able to devise. If you want quick and expedient by all means ignore due process. If you want good sound decision making you do so at your peril.
Based on what Valmy said, it seems this is not the first time. I surmise from that fact that the NCAA proceeds in this way because it can. That does not make it right.
The other issue your question raises is an interesting one and that is to what extent should a domestic administrative process (ie one that does not derive its authority from statute) be required to comply with fundamental principles of procedural fairness. Its a good question. From a legal point of view a suppose the answer is there is no way to force them (going back to my observation that they ignore procedural fairness because they can) but if a domestic administrative body wishes to make good decisions then, again, they ignore procedural fairness at their peril and perhaps the members who make up the NCAA might be concerned about that.
I disagree. Due process rights are one thing when we are discussing deploying the power of the state against someone or something. That isn't at stake here. I read in one article that the NCAA was empowered by a group of presidents to act beyond its ordinary powers. That seems reasonable to me. If I'm a member of a neighborhood tennis club that does background checks etc. and strict character requirements for membership, I sure as hell don't want to go through the time and cost of a review if some notorious criminal applies. I also wouldn't want to go through a long drawn out process of expulsion if a member admitted to some heinous behavior--especially following rules that weren't written with such conduct in mind.
I say this with my first reaction as skeptical of the punishment. But it is one thing to require the government to have a list of laws and regulations covering almost every circumstance to ensure it isn't prejudiced against individuals. I'm sure the laws and regulations in the US run 100s of thousands of pages. But if we demand the same standards from private groups including umbrellas under which athletic competitions are held we will be paralyzed by red tape more than we already are. Sometimes it is useful to be able to step back, cut back through all the rules, and make a decision.
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 01:56:12 PM
:huh:
Mob justice remains an oxymoron. A process in which the NCAA convenes an investigation, does not advise the defendant of the charges, fails to articulate its jurisdiction to address issues which never affected the eligibility of a player to be on the field, and then renders judgment without ever affording the defendant the opportunity to respond to anything, is, by definition, not due process.
When we deny the despicable due process we erode the guaranty that it will be there to protect the innocent. We step closer to mob rule. Group think exacerbated the problems at penn state. The mob remains, on the whole, intemperate, prone to error, and fickle.
We gave himmler and Speer the fundamental right to due process but we gleefully laugh at denying it to penn state. Perhaps this result was the right result but it was not just. Justice comes from a process that insures fundamental fairness -- justice is not and can never be a mere result.
:huh:
I'm pretty sure PSU knew "what the charges" were. It's jurisdiction has been spelled out. The ability to "respond to charges" is a part of the court process, but is not necessarily a part of every disciplinary action. If you're caught stealing from your employer you generally don't get a chance to plead your case before you're fired.
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
Your example of an employers contractual right to fire for cause is problematic in an number of ways. First, it is not an administrative decision akin to the one made here. Second, and taking us off topic, if an employer does fire for cause without the employee getting a chance to explain they are just asking for a world of hurt in the form of damages and likely punative damages.
:huh:
Administrative Law is the law dealing with the operations of governments and governmental agencies. The NCAA is neither.
You are part right. A large part of administrative law deals with the operation of bodies that exercise statutory authority of one type or another. But see my answer to Alfred. Administrative law principles are not confined to those areas.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2012, 03:52:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:31:33 PM
It is easy to ignore due process when one wishes to achieve a quick decision that would meet the approval of the vast majority. Due process is hard. It is also the most just process we have been able to devise. If you want quick and expedient by all means ignore due process. If you want good sound decision making you do so at your peril.
Based on what Valmy said, it seems this is not the first time. I surmise from that fact that the NCAA proceeds in this way because it can. That does not make it right.
The other issue your question raises is an interesting one and that is to what extent should a domestic administrative process (ie one that does not derive its authority from statute) be required to comply with fundamental principles of procedural fairness. Its a good question. From a legal point of view a suppose the answer is there is no way to force them (going back to my observation that they ignore procedural fairness because they can) but if a domestic administrative body wishes to make good decisions then, again, they ignore procedural fairness at their peril and perhaps the members who make up the NCAA might be concerned about that.
I disagree. Due process rights are one thing when we are discussing deploying the power of the state against someone or something. That isn't at stake here. I read in one article that the NCAA was empowered by a group of presidents to act beyond its ordinary powers. That seems reasonable to me. If I'm a member of a neighborhood tennis club that does background checks etc. and strict character requirements for membership, I sure as hell don't want to go through the time and cost of a review if some notorious criminal applies. I also wouldn't want to go through a long drawn out process of expulsion if a member admitted to some heinous behavior--especially following rules that weren't written with such conduct in mind.
I say this with my first reaction as skeptical of the punishment. But it is one thing to require the government to have a list of laws and regulations covering almost every circumstance to ensure it isn't prejudiced against individuals. I'm sure the laws and regulations in the US run 100s of thousands of pages. But if we demand the same standards from private groups including umbrellas under which athletic competitions are held we will be paralyzed by red tape more than we already are. Sometimes it is useful to be able to step back, cut back through all the rules, and make a decision.
As I said, you are coming down squarely on the quick and expediant side of the arugment. Just recognize that ignoring due process can render poor decisions.
What aspects of due process are missing?
hmm... from an article on Slate:
QuoteIt's also odd that the NCAA acted without the usual process of a hearing in front of its Committee on Infractions. Emmert decided that Louis Freeh's damning report about the university, which Penn State's own trustees ordered, would take the place of further examination. Why bypass the usual process— what's the rush?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/23/the_ncaa_s_sanctimonious_sanctions_against_penn_state_football.html
If there is a "usual process" that the NCAA didn't follow then that's different.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 23, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 11:46:52 AM
Also they are relaxing rules on players transferring within the conference. I'm not exactly sure what this means though:
"Players who are eligible won't be restricted by another institution's scholarship limits if they choose to transfer, nor will they have to sit out a season as is customary for players transferring from one FBS program to another."
I assume it means schools can go over the 85 scholarship limit to take PSU kids, if that is the case it is brutal.
Yes, that's what that means. I also saw somewhere that they have an unlimited number of campus visits, etc, as well. The NCAA/Big 10 are simply making it much easier for them to get out of PSU and get to a place where they can actually play for something.
Actually, no, that's not what it means, at least on the face of it. Normally, a player may not transfer from one Big Ten school to another, except as part of the NCAA's graduate student exception. Waivers can be granted, and frequently are, but in this case the Big Ten is saying waivers are not necessary.
The 85-scholarship-student limit is an NCAA rule, and the B10 cannot waive it. What they can waive is their own barriers to transfers.
Not many schools have scholarships available right now, so I would expect most PSU football players that want to leave will transfer effective next year, not this year.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2012, 03:36:17 PM
The NCAA is a completely voluntary association - PSU had as much (honestly likely much more say) in how it runs and its processes as any other institution that is a member.
The procedures they have defined have been defined by the very members that make up the NCAA. How can you just state they are unfair on the basis that they don't meet some legal standard? If legal standards were adequate to meet the needs of the member institutions of the NCAA, there would never be any reason to form the NCAA in the first place.
The model here is that of a national fraternity sanctioning one of its member fraternities. The NCAA is a completely voluntary association. Penn State can refuse to accept NCAA sanctions, and the only consequence is that they cannot play sports against another NCAA institution.
This isn't, as you note, a court case.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2012, 04:29:00 PM
Actually, no, that's not what it means, at least on the face of it. Normally, a player may not transfer from one Big Ten school to another, except as part of the NCAA's graduate student exception. Waivers can be granted, and frequently are, but in this case the Big Ten is saying waivers are not necessary.
The 85-scholarship-student limit is an NCAA rule, and the B10 cannot waive it. What they can waive is their own barriers to transfers.
Not many schools have scholarships available right now, so I would expect most PSU football players that want to leave will transfer effective next year, not this year.
Update: The NCAA is considering lifting the scholarship limit for this year:
Quote
Football student-athletes who transfer will not have to sit out a year of competition. Any incoming or currently enrolled football student-athlete will be immediately eligible upon transfer or initial enrollment at an NCAA institution, provided they are admitted and otherwise eligible per NCAA regulations.
Penn State will release any incoming student-athletes from the National Letter of Intent.
Permission-to-contact rules will be suspended. Penn State cannot restrict in any way a student-athlete from pursuing a possible transfer. Student-athletes must simply inform Penn State of their interest in discussing transfer options with other schools. Interested schools also must inform Penn State of their intention to open discussions with the student-athlete.
Official and unofficial visit rules will be loosened. Any incoming or currently enrolled football student-athletes interested in taking an official or unofficial visit will be permitted to do so during the 2012-13 academic year, no matter how many visits they took during their recruitment. Institutions seeking to provide an official visit to a student who already visited the school as many times as NCAA legislation allows can seek relief from the NCAA on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, the NCAA is considering waiving scholarship limits for programs to which these football student-athletes transfer, provided they reduce proportionately in the next year. For example, the limit is 25 new scholarships per year to a total of 85 scholarships. If the limits are waived in 2012-13 to accommodate one Penn State student-athlete who wishes to transfer to a particular school already at the limits, in 2013-14 the school will be limited to 24 new scholarships and 84 total scholarships.
Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2012, 04:29:00 PM
Actually, no, that's not what it means, at least on the face of it. Normally, a player may not transfer from one Big Ten school to another, except as part of the NCAA's graduate student exception. Waivers can be granted, and frequently are, but in this case the Big Ten is saying waivers are not necessary.
The 85-scholarship-student limit is an NCAA rule, and the B10 cannot waive it. What they can waive is their own barriers to transfers.
Not many schools have scholarships available right now, so I would expect most PSU football players that want to leave will transfer effective next year, not this year.
No, that really is what "Players who are eligible won't be restricted by another institution's scholarship limits if they choose to transfer" means, because that's what it says. Players who choose to transfer won't count against the scholarship limit of the school they are transferring to this year.
E: Didn't see that post there. I'm glad we agree. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...
Meh I was hoping somebody would explain what about this is unfair or specifically what was so mob justice-esque of it. I was wondering if plj felt that same way about the NCAA in general or if there was something particulary unfair about this specific penalty. I mean the NCAA did ask Penn State for an investigation, which it did, the NCAA got the results and determined the penalty like they always do. I was hoping he would elaborate but maybe he will stop by later and explain it.
Somebody tips off the NCAA there is a violation, an investigation is carried out, after the results are taken in a penalty is determined. And this process if grossly unfair? I suppose it might be. But they have no cops or anything they are completely reactionary. As it is they have a very hard time catching violators, so the very few times people are caught the penalties have to be harsh I suppose.
But I guess I should just accept your pronouncement of unfairness even though you do not know anything about this organization and how it has historically run.
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 03:19:51 PM
The NCAA based its punishments on the Freeh report. That report was done by PSU and PSU accepted all of its findings. Would PSU then come back and say that those things are now not true?
Whether the facts are true or not is immaterial to whether penn state had the right to respond. Perhaps penn state might have indicated freeh missed something material. Perhaps penn state might have admitted the facts but contested the authority of the NCAA to regulate how penn state deals with the misconduct of a former coach whose heinous misdeeds and the cover up by the school, institutionalizing and aiding in the crime, never provided penn state with a competitive advantage on the field. Perhaps penn state would've just committed suicide like himmler and fallen on its sword. We don't know, but before judgment was rendered we should've.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 03:21:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
But NCAA punishments have always had these qualities. Why was it only denied in this particular case?
The punishments have always seemed arbitrary but there has always been due process for the charged institution. Indeed the articles I've read make clear that the NCAA knowingly dispensed with its own rules to enable itself to dispense summary justice and justified it by stating "there has never been a case like this."
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...
Berkut Paul does have a point, however; the NCAA and the Big Whatever Number They Are Now are voluntary organizations, based upon mutually-agreed upon rules and codes of conduct by all members. If Penn State doesn't like the administrative ramifications of its own conduct, it doesn't have to be a member of either.
Maybe now the Quakers can get PSU on the schedule, while the getting's good for the next few years. They won't have a better chance.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2012, 03:36:17 PM
The NCAA is a completely voluntary association - PSU had as much (honestly likely much more say) in how it runs and its processes as any other institution that is a member.
The procedures they have defined have been defined by the very members that make up the NCAA. How can you just state they are unfair on the basis that they don't meet some legal standard? If legal standards were adequate to meet the needs of the member institutions of the NCAA, there would never be any reason to form the NCAA in the first place.
They had rules and fair processes to which all members agree to submit. The NCAA openly admits ignoring its own rules in this case because of the exceptional nature of the case.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2012, 03:52:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:31:33 PM
It is easy to ignore due process when one wishes to achieve a quick decision that would meet the approval of the vast majority. Due process is hard. It is also the most just process we have been able to devise. If you want quick and expedient by all means ignore due process. If you want good sound decision making you do so at your peril.
Based on what Valmy said, it seems this is not the first time. I surmise from that fact that the NCAA proceeds in this way because it can. That does not make it right.
The other issue your question raises is an interesting one and that is to what extent should a domestic administrative process (ie one that does not derive its authority from statute) be required to comply with fundamental principles of procedural fairness. Its a good question. From a legal point of view a suppose the answer is there is no way to force them (going back to my observation that they ignore procedural fairness because they can) but if a domestic administrative body wishes to make good decisions then, again, they ignore procedural fairness at their peril and perhaps the members who make up the NCAA might be concerned about that.
I disagree. Due process rights are one thing when we are discussing deploying the power of the state against someone or something. That isn't at stake here. I read in one article that the NCAA was empowered by a group of presidents to act beyond its ordinary powers. That seems reasonable to me. If I'm a member of a neighborhood tennis club that does background checks etc. and strict character requirements for membership, I sure as hell don't want to go through the time and cost of a review if some notorious criminal applies. I also wouldn't want to go through a long drawn out process of expulsion if a member admitted to some heinous behavior--especially following rules that weren't written with such conduct in mind.
I say this with my first reaction as skeptical of the punishment. But it is one thing to require the government to have a list of laws and regulations covering almost every circumstance to ensure it isn't prejudiced against individuals. I'm sure the laws and regulations in the US run 100s of thousands of pages. But if we demand the same standards from private groups including umbrellas under which athletic competitions are held we will be paralyzed by red tape more than we already are. Sometimes it is useful to be able to step back, cut back through all the rules, and make a decision.
your analysis fails because the NCAA enjoys monopolistic powers in college athletics. This implicit exemption from anti trust is indeed how congress occasionally grumbles that it has the right to mandate a playoff or that the Bcs must include Boise state from time to time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...
:lol:
Bad facts make bad law.
We all accept that the NCAA can ignore its own rules and regulate non athletic conduct within its membership by fiat because we all like the result. What happens when the NCAA does it again and the result is not so clearly appropriate?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 05:07:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...
Berkut Paul does have a point, however; the NCAA and the Big Whatever Number They Are Now are voluntary organizations, based upon mutually-agreed upon rules and codes of conduct by all members. If Penn State doesn't like the administrative ramifications of its own conduct, it doesn't have to be a member of either.
Maybe now the Quakers can get PSU on the schedule, while the getting's good for the next few years. They won't have a better chance.
My point is that even voluntary organizations (and those who belong to them) have an interest in administrative fairness being observed when the said organization engages in discipinary type decision making.
edit: another interesting point that is raised by Rasputin is that the organization isnt entirely voluntary but acts more like a monopoly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...
Its funny how the lawyers among us think that fairness needs to exist in court cases. :P
There are those of us that are less than enamored with our justice system.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 23, 2012, 04:45:11 PM
No, that really is what "Players who are eligible won't be restricted by another institution's scholarship limits if they choose to transfer" means, because that's what it says. Players who choose to transfer won't count against the scholarship limit of the school they are transferring to this year.
E: Didn't see that post there. I'm glad we agree. :)
You are quoting reports about the NCAA, not the Big Ten. Given that, we do agree.
Does this change anything with the law-talkers in the house?
http://espn.go.com/new-york/ncf/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998
QuoteWhat did Penn State sign?
Munson: When Penn State president Rodney Erickson signed the consent decree imposed by the NCAA, he and the school agreed not only to the punishments but also to the monitoring, the supervision and to an enforcement process. This is not just a settlement contract. It is the document that governs enforcement and provides for penalties if Penn State screws up.
These agreements are typically negotiated by two organizations in the middle of a dispute. There is no indication of a negotiation or even a minimal role by Penn State or its president and his lawyers. A typical decree would say that Penn State neither admits nor denies wrongdoing. This decree is all about wrongdoing with Penn State admitting everything.
Consent decrees are ordinarily sterile legal documents, but this one expresses outrage. The decree states the evidence against Penn State "presents an unprecedented failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem than the values of the institution, the values of the NCAA, the values of higher education, and, most disturbingly, the values of human decency."
Penn State did not negotiate this document. Penn State surrendered to the terms of this document.
It is possible for a wealthy alumnus, a season-ticket holder, a coach, a taxpayer or even a student-athlete to file a lawsuit challenging the sanctions and the consent decree. But any lawsuits are doomed to failure. Erickson's signature on the consent decree means that the university has agreed to the sanctions and to be bound by them for five years.
No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do. Penn State expressly agrees that it cannot be challenged with "judicial process." Anyone who files a lawsuit would face not only an early dismissal of the case but also the payment of the legal fees incurred by the NCAA and Penn State as they obtain the dismissal. The lawsuit would be an expensive failure.
-- Lester Munson
pdf of the decree:
http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0723/pennstateconclusions.pdf
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 05:04:20 PM
Whether the facts are true or not is immaterial to whether penn state had the right to respond. Perhaps penn state might have indicated freeh missed something material. Perhaps penn state might have admitted the facts but contested the authority of the NCAA to regulate how penn state deals with the misconduct of a former coach whose heinous misdeeds and the cover up by the school, institutionalizing and aiding in the crime, never provided penn state with a competitive advantage on the field. Perhaps penn state would've just committed suicide like himmler and fallen on its sword. We don't know, but before judgment was rendered we should've.
I'm missing something. Where was Penn State not given a chance to challenge anything? The NCAA acted like they always do: investigation, subject institution response, decision, announcement. If this is "mob rule" then the term has no meaning.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 05:16:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...
:lol:
Bad facts make bad law.
We all accept that the NCAA can ignore its own rules and regulate non athletic conduct within its membership by fiat because we all like the result. What happens when the NCAA does it again and the result is not so clearly appropriate?
I'd hope the NCAA isn't making law here, but if it is, I'd point out that the NCAA apparently got the approval of a group of school presidents first and the worst I can see happening is some school's sports team has to sit out a season. That doesn't strike me as a serious consequence considering the facts around this situation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...
It's funny how the morons among us are always beating up on straw men...
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 05:07:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 03:21:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
But NCAA punishments have always had these qualities. Why was it only denied in this particular case?
The punishments have always seemed arbitrary but there has always been due process for the charged institution. Indeed the articles I've read make clear that the NCAA knowingly dispensed with its own rules to enable itself to dispense summary justice and justified it by stating "there has never been a case like this."
Just further proof that the NCAA is a useless, corrupt institution that has no internal or external oversight. It kind of reminds me of that other voluntary sports dinosaur, the Olympics.
Fuck sport. Dueling. Primitive hunting. That's the shit. Bring the food chain back into play. Let everyone who thinks that physical exertion is the measure of a man measure himself like Papa Hemingway.
Quote from: Scipio on July 23, 2012, 06:26:28 PM
Just further proof that the NCAA is a useless, corrupt institution that has no internal or external oversight. It kind of reminds me of that other voluntary sports dinosaur, the Olympics.
Fuck sport. Dueling. Primitive hunting. That's the shit. Bring the food chain back into play. Let everyone who thinks that physical exertion is the measure of a man measure himself like Papa Hemingway.
You exaggerate for effect, but I agree with the basic thrust of your premise. I don't like the NCAA: their rules are contradictory and often self-defeating, and I agree that the Olympics is a marketing abomination that should be nuked from orbit, because that's the only way to be sure.
I just don't think that this case is the poster-child for NCAA crappiness. The NCAA was careful to isolate Penn State University from the implications of them hammering the ulcer that is the PSU football program (and which PSU utterly failed to address on its own).
The shame here lies on the PSU board. The simple decision to stand down football for a year to re-evaluate priorities would have drawn the teeth of most of these sanctions, and yet they fumbled it, thinking that merely removing a statute would do the trick. Mass forced resignations are in order.
g, have you seen some of the stuff members of the PSU board have been saying (could just be one guy, to be fair)? They're fucking crazy people. Talking about being stabbed in the back or something similar because the president accepted this punishment and blahblah.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2012, 06:18:23 PM
You are quoting reports about the NCAA, not the Big Ten. Given that, we do agree.
It still means the same thing, no matter which reports are quoted. ;)
Papa Smurf >>> Papa Hemingway
Papa Doc would bust a cap in both their asses.
Nut >>> cap.
Dr Ed Ray, president and chairman of the NCAA's executive committee and Emmert's right hand man today is the President of Oregon State University. He did an interview on Portland local sports talk radio this afternoon. It is pretty good for anyone who is really interested in what happened today. It is just over 11 minutes long.
Some key points:
Penn State waived their right to due process. This is the very first question and within the first few seconds of the interview.
It sounds like schools would have to have an open scholarship to offer one to a PSU player.
http://podcast.1080thefan.com/kfxx2/3574419.mp3
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 06:18:37 PM
No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do.
I would think that the state of Pennsylvania itself would have standing.
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 08:42:25 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 06:18:37 PM
No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do.
I would think that the state of Pennsylvania itself would have standing.
Is that from the quote about the decree of consent?
That was written by Lester Munson, ESPN's legal expert. You would have to take it up with him, or another law-talker familiar with the decree.
This weeks SI cover, according to Twitter.
(https://p.twimg.com/AyhZHTYCUAA0mzm.jpg:large)
OMG and on top of everything else, they get the SI Cover Curse. What a kick in the nuts.
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 08:43:55 PM
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 08:42:25 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 06:18:37 PM
No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do.
I would think that the state of Pennsylvania itself would have standing.
Is that from the quote about the decree of consent?
That was written by Lester Munson, ESPN's legal expert. You would have to take it up with him, or another law-talker familiar with the decree.
Yeah, you had posted the quote from the article. Wasn't my intent to make it look like it was a statement you'd made.
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 08:54:23 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 08:43:55 PM
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 08:42:25 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 06:18:37 PM
No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do.
I would think that the state of Pennsylvania itself would have standing.
Is that from the quote about the decree of consent?
That was written by Lester Munson, ESPN's legal expert. You would have to take it up with him, or another law-talker familiar with the decree.
Yeah, you had posted the quote from the article. Wasn't my intent to make it look like it was a statement you'd made.
I didn't think so but I got confused at first. :D
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 05:07:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2012, 03:21:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness. I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.
But NCAA punishments have always had these qualities. Why was it only denied in this particular case?
The punishments have always seemed arbitrary but there has always been due process for the charged institution. Indeed the articles I've read make clear that the NCAA knowingly dispensed with its own rules to enable itself to dispense summary justice and justified it by stating "there has never been a case like this."
The Freeh report was a much more thorough investigation than the NCAA could ever hope to make. The NCAA has relied upon federal investigations before because they can make more thorough investigations. This is the same principal. Furthermore the Freeh report was sponsored by Penn state itself, this was essentially self reporting.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 23, 2012, 06:45:50 PM
g, have you seen some of the stuff members of the PSU board have been saying (could just be one guy, to be fair)? They're fucking crazy people. Talking about being stabbed in the back or something similar because the president accepted this punishment and blahblah.
I've been following Black Shoes Diaries for years, and agree that the current stuff is just unbelievable.
A good friend of mine is a Penn State grad (though never a fan of Paterno) and his main beef is with the lengthy bowl ban. He thinks that will hurt worse than the scholarship reductions.
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 08:41:09 PM
Some key points:
Penn State waived their right to due process. This is the very first question and within the first few seconds of the interview.
It sounds like schools would have to have an open scholarship to offer one to a PSU player.
http://podcast.1080thefan.com/kfxx2/3574419.mp3
The bit about PSU "waiving" their rights to due process is interesting. The person being interviewed didnt say that. It was something the interviewer said in the preamble. Does anyone know what the interviewer was basing that comment on?
Also interesting to me is that someone earlier in the thread asserted PSU had agreed with the contents of the report. But the person being interviewed said PSU "released the report without comment" and from that the NCAA took it that PSU was agreeing. Two quite different things.
As I learn more about this case three things become apparent:
1) The community surrounding PSU (from which the PSU board is selected) in financially dependant on PSU college football - much like many other small communities in the US are dependant on college sports.
2) the PSU board has no option but to stay in the NCAA if it wants to keep its football program both for the economic viability of the community and the University since the NCAA has a monopoly on major football.
3) Given this monopoly position it is imperative that the NCAA proceed in a fair manner when deciding any disciplinary matters.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 05:07:19 PM
]The punishments have always seemed arbitrary but there has always been due process for the charged institution. Indeed the articles I've read make clear that the NCAA knowingly dispensed with its own rules to enable itself to dispense summary justice and justified it by stating "there has never been a case like this."
Um yes there has been a case almost exactly like this. The Baylor case where the coach tried to cover up a murder to keep his guy playing, just like Penn State covered up for Sandusky and allowed him to keep coaching. Granted Baylor school cooperated alot more thoroughly (I think they blew the whistle on their coach IIRC) but that is a BS excuse. Considering how obvious the violations are it does seem odd the NCAA would do some sort of bending of the rules. The old rules allowed it to hammer Baylor Basketball with very similar penalties (well...except for the size of the fine). So surely if they had left the old procedures in place the resulting penalties probably would have been similar. Why did they do it in this case? Any speculation?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:33:35 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 08:41:09 PM
Some key points:
Penn State waived their right to due process. This is the very first question and within the first few seconds of the interview.
It sounds like schools would have to have an open scholarship to offer one to a PSU player.
http://podcast.1080thefan.com/kfxx2/3574419.mp3
The bit about PSU "waiving" their rights to due process is interesting. The person being interviewed didnt say that. It was something the interviewer said in the preamble. Does anyone know what the interviewer was basing that comment on?
It wasn't really in the preamble, it was in the first question he asked. The fact that Dr Ray didn't correct him tells me that it was a true statement. I assume as a lawyer your mind doesn't work that way though. :)
And I don't know where he got that from, I haven't spent much time looking around.
QuoteAlso interesting to me is that someone earlier in the thread asserted PSU had agreed with the contents of the report. But the person being interviewed said PSU "released the report without comment" and from that the NCAA took it that PSU was agreeing. Two quite different things.
From a different written interview with Dr Ray by the local newspaper: (http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2012/07/oregon_state_beavers_a_qa_with.html)
"Q: How have the past few days and weeks been for you, knowing the enormity of the Sandusky scandal and its consequences?
A: This has been a rolling process of discovery of just how tragic the circumstances were at Penn State University. It began back in November 2011, and we learned more over time, through the Sandusky investigation and trial.
I think it culminated with the Freeh Report that was commissioned and accepted without exception by the university. It was the release of that report and the acceptance of the findings by the university itself and the concurrence with the NCAA that led us to move forward with deliberations over whether or not it would be appropriate to create a set of punitive and corrective actions by the NCAA to be imposed on Penn State University – hopefully in a consent decree, where the university accepts proposed actions we put forward, and that's what happened."
I assume commissioning a report and accepting without exception is good enough?
QuoteAs I learn more about this case three things become apparent:
1) The community surrounding PSU (from which the PSU board is selected) in financially dependant on PSU college football - much like many other small communities in the US are dependant on college sports.
2) the PSU board has no option but to stay in the NCAA if it wants to keep its football program both for the economic viability of the community and the University since the NCAA has a monopoly on major football.
3) Given this monopoly position it is imperative that the NCAA proceed in a fair manner when deciding any disciplinary matters.
Very true. I think this is a large part of the reason they didn't shut the program down. There are a huge number of business and individuals who make their living through Penn State football and shuttering the program, no matter how much it was deserved, would have had disastrous effects on the Happy Valley economy. You might even be able to say they aren't completely innocent in the matter, for letting Paterno and the program get so important that these things were allowed to happen, but I just can't see anyone having the stones to make that decision.
If the University and community are actually dependent on the football program then we probably should shut it down or it should be made a pro team. That is simply too dangerous to be allowed to continue.
But I seriously doubt the University is that dependent on it. Very few Athletic departments give a dime to the Academic side...and usually it is exactly the opposite. In 99.999% of cases the only part of the University that is dependent on Football are the other teams.
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 11:52:24 AM
It wasn't really in the preamble, it was in the first question he asked. The fact that Dr Ray didn't correct him tells me that it was a true statement. I assume as a lawyer your mind doesn't work that way though. :)
Sounds like exactly the same logic used by the NCAA in breach of procedural fairness. Didnt know one had to be a lawyer to spot this kind of lazy thinking. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:33 AM
Sounds like exactly the same logic used by the NCAA in breach of procedural fairness. Didnt know one had to be a lawyer to spot this kind of lazy thinking. :)
The penalty does not even seem that unfair but inline with precedent. Which makes the procedural stuff odd. It will be interesting to know the whys and hows because it seems so unnecessary. It does seem like they are using the opportunity to create a dangerous precedent. Very Federal Justice Department of it.
My Google-Fu led me to some random forum where I found this. No idea who the guy is but his argument is long the lines I have been thinking, just expressed properly.
QuoteFrom what has been written, Penn State will accept the penalties proposed by the NCAA. Thus, by accepting the penalties (in essence, pleading guilty), they are waiving any due process rights they may have.
If Penn State did not want to accept the penalties, they could appeal. They would go through the administrative appeals process initially, and if they failed to overturn the penalties, they would have then gone through the court system.
If they wanted to go through the court system immediately, they could go to federal court and ask for an injunction against the NCAA in order to prevent them from enforcing their penalty. A judge would decide whether they were entitled to injunctive relief. Even if no injunction was issued, Penn State could go to trial against the NCAA.
My point is that I don't see where anyone's due process rights are being taken away, including Penn State's. Of course, there is no assurance they would get injunctive relief, win in court, or win anywhere. However, Penn State would not have to win the case in order to have been given due process...due process would have been afforded them with a hearing or hearings as described, above, where they would be given a chance to have argued their case before their property was taken from them.
From reports i've seen, they agreed to these sanctions with the understanding if they didn't they were facing multiple year death penalty, this was a plea bargain as it were.
Ok so they could appeal?
plj was wrong? Or...right but wrong in a different way? Or right completely and he was talking about something else?
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 12:27:17 PM
Ok so they could appeal?
plj was wrong? Or...right but wrong in a different way? Or right completely and he was talking about something else?
Once they signed the Decree of Consent, or whatever the proper term is, they could no longer appeal. But if they fought it from the start I don't see why not.
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 12:28:50 PM
Once they signed the Decree of Consent, or whatever the proper term is, they could no longer appeal. But if they fought it from the start I don't see why not.
:yes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:33 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 11:52:24 AM
It wasn't really in the preamble, it was in the first question he asked. The fact that Dr Ray didn't correct him tells me that it was a true statement. I assume as a lawyer your mind doesn't work that way though. :)
Sounds like exactly the same logic used by the NCAA in breach of procedural fairness. Didnt know one had to be a lawyer to spot this kind of lazy thinking. :)
It strikes me that the lazy thinking comes from looking at one or two reports, not seeing what you accept as "procedural fairness," and assuming that, because you didn't see it, it wasn't there. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to see how silly that is. :)
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:56:31 AM
But I seriously doubt the University is that dependent on it. Very few Athletic departments give a dime to the Academic side...and usually it is exactly the opposite. In 99.999% of cases the only part of the University that is dependent on Football are the other teams.
Exactly. Athletic departments don't share that money for shit.
Quote from: katmai on July 24, 2012, 12:27:17 PM
From reports i've seen, they agreed to these sanctions with the understanding if they didn't they were facing multiple year death penalty, this was a plea bargain as it were.
Pretty much every NCAA sanction is like that. The extent of the sanction is negotiated. That's why every school ends up accepting the NCAA sanctions; because that's what the negotiations are about. Some schools are happier about the outcome than others (USC accepted the sanctions but the AD blamed their severity on the fact that the NCAA was just jealous of USC), but they all know they got the best deal they could under the circumstances.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2012, 12:37:31 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 24, 2012, 12:27:17 PM
From reports i've seen, they agreed to these sanctions with the understanding if they didn't they were facing multiple year death penalty, this was a plea bargain as it were.
Pretty much every NCAA sanction is like that. The extent of the sanction is negotiated. That's why every school ends up accepting the NCAA sanctions; because that's what the negotiations are about. Some schools are happier about the outcome than others (USC accepted the sanctions but the AD blamed their severity on the fact that the NCAA was just jealous of USC), but they all know they got the best deal they could under the circumstances.
From the same print interview with Dr Ray. Posted in its entirety with time and with relevant sections bolded.
http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2012/07/oregon_state_beavers_a_qa_with.html
QuoteA Q & A with Dr. Ed Ray, Oregon State president and chairman of the NCAA's executive committee, after the NCAA imposed sanctions on Penn State on Monday:
Q: How are you holding up?
A: Fine – I'm back in Oregon!
Q: Can you describe your role in the process that led to today's announcement?
A: I chair the executive committee of the NCAA. In a way, the executive committee is like the board of directors of a corporation or a board of trustees of a foundation or a university. It includes members from all three divisions – Divisions I, II and III. They are all presidents or chancellors, and I've chaired that since October of 2009. I took over that position after Myles Brand passed away in September of 2009. So I began a search to find a new president for the NCAA, and that's when we recruited Mark Emmert. So I've been doing this for the past 2 ½ years.
Q: How have the past few days and weeks been for you, knowing the enormity of the Sandusky scandal and its consequences?
A: This has been a rolling process of discovery of just how tragic the circumstances were at Penn State University. It began back in November 2011, and we learned more over time, through the Sandusky investigation and trial. I think it culminated with the Freeh Report that was commissioned and accepted without exception by the university. It was the release of that report and the acceptance of the findings by the university itself and the concurrence with the NCAA that led us to move forward with deliberations over whether or not it would be appropriate to create a set of punitive and corrective actions by the NCAA to be imposed on Penn State University – hopefully in a consent decree, where the university accepts proposed actions we put forward, and that's what happened.
Q: Is it true that had Penn State not consented, there was a possibility that the so-called death penalty would be enacted?
A: Well, let me tell you what I can tell you. We actually had our own internal discussion and a discussion with President Emmert. We told him to go out and put together a package of actions, both punitive and corrective, and come back to us. We want to discuss them, and we want to declare what we think are appropriate actions. As part of that, we talked about whether suspension of play ought to be one of the actions that we would call for. People honestly disagree. ... I mean, this is horrific, it's pretty hard not to want to make harsh judgments. ... But the overwhelming vote – we took a vote – in both the executive committee and the Division I board was not to include a suspension of play or death penalty, and then we quickly moved to the menu of actions that you heard about today, and we voted unanimously to support that package. At no time did we ever have a discussion about, "If they don't do this, we're going to do that.'' That is a conversation that never occurred.
Q: Is this an anomaly, or can we expect a variety of transgressions to be met with harsher penalties than the NCAA has doled out in the past?
A: I wouldn't want to read too much into what are the takeaways from today. The main takeaway that I hope people pay attention to is that this is a specific set of actions, punitive and corrective, for Penn State University based on the facts as we understand them in this very horrific episode. It is a teachable moment, and people can try to learn lessons. I think their takeaway is what I said in the press conference: Every president and chancellor at major universities with Division I athletics programs ought to do a gut check and ask themselves: Do we have appropriate balance between our athletics culture and the broader culture and values of the university, and if we think we do, how do we know that's so? And if we don't, what do we need to do to get back in balance? This is a cautionary tale of what can happen when a football culture overwhelms a university. We had a chancellors' retreat last August, and a chancellor said, "Enough. People are making risk/reward calculations and violating rules where they don't think the penalties are as likely to come or would be so severe that they shouldn't risk it.'' Quite separately from the Penn State case, I chair a work group that's been looking at the enforcement process, policies, procedures, how things get adjudicated, what the violations structure should be. We've created penalty guidelines. If all goes according to form, all that will be put into place effective August of 2013. That's separate from the specific actions we've taken in the Penn State case.
Q: What can you tell me about the new enforcement penalty structure?
A: We now have a committee on infractions that has, I think, nine members on it. We proposed that be increased to as many as 24 and that there be several panels of five to seven members who can be hearing cases simultaneously, as a way of trying to speed up the enforcement process. Instead of the current major, secondary violations structure, we're proposing a Level One through Four structure that would correspond to severe breach of appropriate conduct, significant breach of appropriate conduct, breach of appropriate conduct and incidental infraction. We also have a rules group that is looking at all the rules of the NCAA, looking to streamline. I expect a lot of things that now fall into the incidental infractions area may in fact disappear – they are more a nuisance and need to be dealt with at the conference level. We've also proposed penalty guidelines. What we are proposing are more severe penalties than those that have been given out historically.
Q: As far as changing the culture to make sure athletics aren't too out of whack with the rest of the university, how realistic is that? I mean, down the road, they're building a $68 million football office. How realistic is it when there are so many dollars involved?
A: That's the question every president or chancellor needs to be asking him or herself. Do we have the balance right? What do we need to change? Leaders are supposed to lead, and if they're not in the right place ... there are programs that are successful and wonderful and are not involved in lots of violations across the country, so I wouldn't want to paint everyone with a negative brush. It can be done, and what we've tried to do in the case of Penn State is propose corrective actions in terms of compliance, it terms of the athletics integrity agreement that hopefully will help them find them find that path.
Q: Will other schools enter into this athletics integrity agreement? Is that something, say, Oregon State could do?
A: We've called for it in this particular case because (PSU) clearly got lost somewhere. I think most universities do operate with great integrity, do have wonderful community and institutional values that they adhere to. So these are corrective actions for a university that lost on its values and its culture, and we've proposed very specific corrective actions for Penn State.
Q: OK, thanks again. So did the Beavers' 2008 record (with a 45-14 loss at Penn State) just get better?
A: No. When wins get vacated, the losers don't get the wins. The penalized team just loses the victories – nothing else changes.
- John Hunt
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 12:32:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:56:31 AM
But I seriously doubt the University is that dependent on it. Very few Athletic departments give a dime to the Academic side...and usually it is exactly the opposite. In 99.999% of cases the only part of the University that is dependent on Football are the other teams.
Exactly. Athletic departments don't share that money for shit.
Few do, but then few ADs make money. Michigan's AD sends about $20 million to the university every year. Three quarters of that is for sports scholarships, the rest goes into the general scholarship fund.
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 12:24:58 PM
My Google-Fu led me to some random forum where I found this. No idea who the guy is but his argument is long the lines I have been thinking, just expressed properly.
QuoteFrom what has been written, Penn State will accept the penalties proposed by the NCAA. Thus, by accepting the penalties (in essence, pleading guilty), they are waiving any due process rights they may have.
If Penn State did not want to accept the penalties, they could appeal. They would go through the administrative appeals process initially, and if they failed to overturn the penalties, they would have then gone through the court system.
If they wanted to go through the court system immediately, they could go to federal court and ask for an injunction against the NCAA in order to prevent them from enforcing their penalty. A judge would decide whether they were entitled to injunctive relief. Even if no injunction was issued, Penn State could go to trial against the NCAA.
My point is that I don't see where anyone's due process rights are being taken away, including Penn State's. Of course, there is no assurance they would get injunctive relief, win in court, or win anywhere. However, Penn State would not have to win the case in order to have been given due process...due process would have been afforded them with a hearing or hearings as described, above, where they would be given a chance to have argued their case before their property was taken from them.
Ok I see now. The fact that they agreed to a punishment that was pronounced without due process means they waived due process. That is some special kind of logic. If PSU had waived having a fair determination (which would be exceedingly odd for them to do) before the disciplinary decision was handed down that would deflate any argument they were entitled to it.
But this is different. Here the NCAA came to a decision without due process and its a take it or leave the NCAA proposition.
I am not sure what court process is available to PSU. If the law in the US is the same as it is in Canada the courts would likely not interfere in the decision of a domestic tribunal such as the NCAA. Which, again, given the consequences of the decision, is why the NCAA should strain to ensure its decisions are arrived at in a fair manner.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:56:31 AM
In 99.999% of cases the only part of the University that is dependent on Football are the other teams.
The lame-ass girls' sports.
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
To think that they can't is silly. Collegiate Athletics is the NCAA's business and the problems in the Penn State Athletic Department were unprecedented. They also made it clear that this isn't about the Sandusky crimes, it is about the 14 years of the Athletic Department hiding, lying for, and making excuses for a child rapist. If this wasn't lack of institutional control I would be curious to see what you thought was.
It's not that I don't think they can, I'm just wondering why they should. The criminal activities that occurred had no direct affect on the sports or education program of the school. It was strictly driven by the vile actions of one person and the stupid/blinkered desire of others to prevent it from becoming public. The punishments being meted out won't stop other idiots in a similar position from doing something equally dumb. I'm sure that there are other coverups going on at most of the NCAA schools right now, although I really hope that none of them are this bad.
My personal opinion is that the halfway house between high school and the pros of collegiate football/basketball isn't working and is getting worse all the time. Better to cut them loose and turn them into actual minor leagues instead of distorting the focus of higher education.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2012, 12:42:42 PM
Few do, but then few ADs make money. Michigan's AD sends about $20 million to the university every year. Three quarters of that is for sports scholarships, the rest goes into the general scholarship fund.
Which is nice but zero for operating expenses or anything that would make the university dependent on the AD.
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
The punishments being meted out won't stop other idiots in a similar position from doing something equally dumb.
I do not agree with this at all.
The very point of making these punishments extremely harsh is to convince administrators that the cost of the cover-up is worse than the cost of coming clean.
That is the entire purpose behind all NCAA sanctions.
This is truly a classic case of the need to make an example. Not so much an example of what happens when you let assistant coaches fuck minors in your locker (I certianly hope that is a isolate incident) but what happens when you let the football culture dominate the university culture so much that basic integrity is somehow lost.
Hopefully this is very much an eye opening experience for not just PSU (and honestly, PSU had their eyes opened before anyone slapped them with these penalties) but for other university presidents and athletic directors. The penalty for losing focus to this extent should be extreme, otherwise you are right - it won't stop.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
The punishments being meted out won't stop other idiots in a similar position from doing something equally dumb.
I do not agree with this at all.
The very point of making these punishments extremely harsh is to convince administrators that the cost of the cover-up is worse than the cost of coming clean.
That is the entire purpose behind all NCAA sanctions.
This is truly a classic case of the need to make an example. Not so much an example of what happens when you let assistant coaches fuck minors in your locker (I certianly hope that is a isolate incident) but what happens when you let the football culture dominate the university culture so much that basic integrity is somehow lost.
Hopefully this is very much an eye opening experience for not just PSU (and honestly, PSU had their eyes opened before anyone slapped them with these penalties) but for other university presidents and athletic directors. The penalty for losing focus to this extent should be extreme, otherwise you are right - it won't stop.
I dunno. If the penalty for covering up crimes is to be fired and suffer criminal punishments - what
additional actual deterrence is provided by imposing sanctions on the institution as a whole, after you, the person(s) responsible for the cover-up, are (presumably) long gone, serving your time? I mean, unless you are very loyal to your organization, presumably you don't really care what happens to it that much, compared with what will happen to you.
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
The criminal activities that occurred had no direct affect on the sports or education program of the school. It was strictly driven by the vile actions of one person and the stupid/blinkered desire of others to prevent it from becoming public.
It was a coach, not just any individual. And a coach who coached games after they knew about it. That seems to have alot to do with sports, if they had reported it promptly that super star defensive coordinator would not have been coaching those games. UT recently (well a couple years ago) got a major violation for the actions of a coach that had nothing to do with any players.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:34:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
The punishments being meted out won't stop other idiots in a similar position from doing something equally dumb.
I do not agree with this at all.
The very point of making these punishments extremely harsh is to convince administrators that the cost of the cover-up is worse than the cost of coming clean.
That is the entire purpose behind all NCAA sanctions.
This is truly a classic case of the need to make an example. Not so much an example of what happens when you let assistant coaches fuck minors in your locker (I certianly hope that is a isolate incident) but what happens when you let the football culture dominate the university culture so much that basic integrity is somehow lost.
Hopefully this is very much an eye opening experience for not just PSU (and honestly, PSU had their eyes opened before anyone slapped them with these penalties) but for other university presidents and athletic directors. The penalty for losing focus to this extent should be extreme, otherwise you are right - it won't stop.
I dunno. If the penalty for covering up crimes is to be fired and suffer criminal punishments - what additional actual deterrence is provided by imposing sanctions on the institution as a whole, after you, the person(s) responsible for the cover-up, are (presumably) long gone, serving your time? I mean, unless you are very loyal to your organization, presumably you don't really care what happens to it that much, compared with what will happen to you.
Encourages the University to be better at self-policing.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:34:43 PM
I dunno. If the penalty for covering up crimes is to be fired and suffer criminal punishments - what additional actual deterrence is provided by imposing sanctions on the institution as a whole, after you, the person(s) responsible for the cover-up, are (presumably) long gone, serving your time? I mean, unless you are very loyal to your organization, presumably you don't really care what happens to it that much, compared with what will happen to you.
Well that is sort of the problem with NCAA rules and enforcement in general. The people responsible for the violations tend to move on (to things other than working for NCAA institutions anyway...at least for awhile) and the people left behind have to deal with the fallout.
On the other hand, since the NCAA is completely dependent on the member institutions to police themselves it is the institutions who have to suffer the pain.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 03:43:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:34:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
The punishments being meted out won't stop other idiots in a similar position from doing something equally dumb.
I do not agree with this at all.
The very point of making these punishments extremely harsh is to convince administrators that the cost of the cover-up is worse than the cost of coming clean.
That is the entire purpose behind all NCAA sanctions.
This is truly a classic case of the need to make an example. Not so much an example of what happens when you let assistant coaches fuck minors in your locker (I certianly hope that is a isolate incident) but what happens when you let the football culture dominate the university culture so much that basic integrity is somehow lost.
Hopefully this is very much an eye opening experience for not just PSU (and honestly, PSU had their eyes opened before anyone slapped them with these penalties) but for other university presidents and athletic directors. The penalty for losing focus to this extent should be extreme, otherwise you are right - it won't stop.
I dunno. If the penalty for covering up crimes is to be fired and suffer criminal punishments - what additional actual deterrence is provided by imposing sanctions on the institution as a whole, after you, the person(s) responsible for the cover-up, are (presumably) long gone, serving your time? I mean, unless you are very loyal to your organization, presumably you don't really care what happens to it that much, compared with what will happen to you.
Encourages the University to be better at self-policing.
Dunno what the university as an organization can effectively do, if the people who make up its administration are covering up crimes. The most the university itself can do to someone is threaten to fire them if they cover up stuff.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:34:43 PM
I dunno. If the penalty for covering up crimes is to be fired and suffer criminal punishments - what additional actual deterrence is provided by imposing sanctions on the institution as a whole, after you, the person(s) responsible for the cover-up, are (presumably) long gone, serving your time? I mean, unless you are very loyal to your organization, presumably you don't really care what happens to it that much, compared with what will happen to you.
Well that is sort of the problem with NCAA rules and enforcement in general. The people responsible for the violations tend to move on (to things other than working for NCAA institutions anyway...at least for awhile) and the people left behind have to deal with the fallout.
On the other hand, since the NCAA is completely dependent on the member institutions to police themselves it is the institutions who have to suffer the pain.
Seems more of an issue where the NCAA rules are being used to punish institutions for the outright criminal activities of their administrators or staff, than where the rules are used to punish organizations for breaking the NCAA rules themselves. In the former case, there is (presumably) a criminal justice system in place to deal with the concerns, but not in the latter case.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:54:56 PM
Dunno what the university as an organization can effectively do, if the people who make up its administration are covering up crimes. The most the university itself can do to someone is threaten to fire them if they cover up stuff.
Well one thing they can do is get at the heart of why staff think it is appropriate/acceptable to cover up crimes.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:54:56 PM
Dunno what the university as an organization can effectively do, if the people who make up its administration are covering up crimes. The most the university itself can do to someone is threaten to fire them if they cover up stuff.
Ok so everytime a University breaks NCAA rules they can just finger a few scape goats and never suffer any violations then?
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:34:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
The punishments being meted out won't stop other idiots in a similar position from doing something equally dumb.
I do not agree with this at all.
The very point of making these punishments extremely harsh is to convince administrators that the cost of the cover-up is worse than the cost of coming clean.
That is the entire purpose behind all NCAA sanctions.
This is truly a classic case of the need to make an example. Not so much an example of what happens when you let assistant coaches fuck minors in your locker (I certianly hope that is a isolate incident) but what happens when you let the football culture dominate the university culture so much that basic integrity is somehow lost.
Hopefully this is very much an eye opening experience for not just PSU (and honestly, PSU had their eyes opened before anyone slapped them with these penalties) but for other university presidents and athletic directors. The penalty for losing focus to this extent should be extreme, otherwise you are right - it won't stop.
I dunno. If the penalty for covering up crimes is to be fired and suffer criminal punishments - what additional actual deterrence is provided by imposing sanctions on the institution as a whole, after you, the person(s) responsible for the cover-up, are (presumably) long gone, serving your time? I mean, unless you are very loyal to your organization, presumably you don't really care what happens to it that much, compared with what will happen to you.
Jail is deterrence to the individuals. But what is deterring the institution as a whole? To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 02:49:21 PM
Which is nice but zero for operating expenses or anything that would make the university dependent on the AD.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, but I parse it as the claim that the university doesn't benefit financially from having an athletic department. I'm not sure that you can make that case. Studies have shown that athletic success increases donations to the university (not the AD, the university itself), and that athletic success also factors into student decisions about what college they will attend. Do these factors make college athletics a "good deal" for the schools? I dunno, but pretty much every university president seems to think that it does, bar a few exceptions like the Ivy Leagues and Chicago.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:57:56 PM
Seems more of an issue where the NCAA rules are being used to punish institutions for the outright criminal activities of their administrators or staff, than where the rules are used to punish organizations for breaking the NCAA rules themselves. In the former case, there is (presumably) a criminal justice system in place to deal with the concerns, but not in the latter case.
Covering up criminal activity so somebody can remain to compete or coach athletics is hardly unprecedented, as I noted the Baylor case earlier. If the athletic department does not suffer for it they will continue to cover up for their star athletes or coaches in order to win games.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2012, 04:02:05 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, but I parse it as the claim that the university doesn't benefit financially from having an athletic department.
No I am saying the University would survive just fine without it. And far from few exceptions being the Ivy League and Chicago I think many great Universities exist in this country with lots of donations and are popular with students where their athletic department is not a factor. MIT and Rice and Tulane have athletic departments but none of their donors really care about that.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:34:43 PM
I dunno. If the penalty for covering up crimes is to be fired and suffer criminal punishments - what additional actual deterrence is provided by imposing sanctions on the institution as a whole, after you, the person(s) responsible for the cover-up, are (presumably) long gone, serving your time? I mean, unless you are very loyal to your organization, presumably you don't really care what happens to it that much, compared with what will happen to you.
It depends on whether the audience for these sanctions is the Presidents of the universities, or the boards. The PSU board raised the issue of increasing the accountability of the athletic department and the president in 2000, and again in 2004, and were basically talked out of it. These sanctions tell boards of directors/regents/whatever that they need to be more serous about their responsibilities.
I guess this kind of comes down to whether we consider the University an entity that exists over and above the individials who make up its adminstrators, and hence the sum of the policies, procdeures, and culture that make up that University is identifiaible (and worthy of being punished) outsde simple the individuals who happen to be filling some job at any particular moment.
It isn't ideal of course, but what is the alternative? If you never hold the organization responsible, then there really isn't any real enforcement - any school can simply cut the individuals free now and again, and escape any real penalty.
The purpose of holding the school accountable, even if the people are gone already, is to make current schools think "Hey, I better actually buy into the idea that we should do things the right way, rather than buy into the idea that we should be good at not getting caught".
Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 04:04:57 PM
No I am saying the University would survive just fine without it.
Sure. Same for the art school, the music school, the engineering school, etc. Lots of schools don't have those things.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2012, 04:09:51 PM
Sure. Same for the art school, the music school, the engineering school, etc. Lots of schools don't have those things.
I was responding to CC's claim that Penn State was dependent on its football program. So yes.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 04:07:30 PM
Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.
Hush you!
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 04:11:20 PM
I was responding to CC's claim that Penn State was dependent on its football program. So yes.
Experience tells us that, if CC says it, it probably isn't true. I agree that PSU could survive quite handily without an athletic department. It would be a massive blow to their identity, but the institution would survive in some form. Athletics are icing, not cake.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 03:59:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:54:56 PM
Dunno what the university as an organization can effectively do, if the people who make up its administration are covering up crimes. The most the university itself can do to someone is threaten to fire them if they cover up stuff.
Well one thing they can do is get at the heart of why staff think it is appropriate/acceptable to cover up crimes.
I assume the same reason people think it is okay to commit crimes in the first place. Because they will personally benefit from the crime, and believe that chances are good they won't be caught and punished.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
Jail is deterrence to the individuals. But what is deterring the institution as a whole? To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.
If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.
OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to
investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:21:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 03:59:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 03:54:56 PM
Dunno what the university as an organization can effectively do, if the people who make up its administration are covering up crimes. The most the university itself can do to someone is threaten to fire them if they cover up stuff.
Well one thing they can do is get at the heart of why staff think it is appropriate/acceptable to cover up crimes.
I assume the same reason people think it is okay to commit crimes in the first place. Because they will personally benefit from the crime, and believe that chances are good they won't be caught and punished.
The heart of the claim here though is that Penn State allowed and encouraged a culture where football was held to be more important than anything else - a culture where nobody dared question JoePa, a culture where the needs of the football program were above the needs of protecting children.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
Jail is deterrence to the individuals. But what is deterring the institution as a whole? To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.
If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.
OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?
The claim isn't that the President covered up the crime, but that the President, Board of Regeants and whomever failed to exercise sufficient (or any) control or oversight over the football team. It's not a criminal offence, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very seriously.
The Freeh report says the president helped in the cover up.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 04:07:30 PM
I guess this kind of comes down to whether we consider the University an entity that exists over and above the individials who make up its adminstrators, and hence the sum of the policies, procdeures, and culture that make up that University is identifiaible (and worthy of being punished) outsde simple the individuals who happen to be filling some job at any particular moment.
It isn't ideal of course, but what is the alternative? If you never hold the organization responsible, then there really isn't any real enforcement - any school can simply cut the individuals free now and again, and escape any real penalty.
The purpose of holding the school accountable, even if the people are gone already, is to make current schools think "Hey, I better actually buy into the idea that we should do things the right way, rather than buy into the idea that we should be good at not getting caught".
Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.
I dunno. I'm just not getting why collective, institutional punishment is appropriate.
Perhaps an example would illustrate the issue. Say a famous, skilled player - a new OJ Simpson ( ;)) - murdered someone, and his coach found out about it. Intead of going to the cops, he went to the President of the university. Between them, they decided to help the player cover up the murder, maybe personally buried the victim on the 50 yard line.
To my mind, arresting all three is a no-brainer. They are all guilty as fuck, and ought to sit out the season- and many more - in a cell. What I would not understand, is imposing sanctions on the school. Maybe the school board exercised bad judgment in hiring these guys, but how do you know in advance who will do that? Having a policy that says "whatever you do, do not cover up murders. Do not bury the victims in the playing field" is all well and good, but really, you sorta expect people not to do that anyway, and if they are the sort that would, are they really going to listen to your policy? "Oh yeah, I was about to commit this crime, but then I read Article 5(B) of my
University Code of Conduct, and realized it was a bad idea".
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
Jail is deterrence to the individuals. But what is deterring the institution as a whole? To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.
If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.
OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?
The claim isn't that the President covered up the crime, but that the President, Board of Regeants and whomever failed to exercise sufficient (or any) control or oversight over the football team. It's not a criminal offence, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very seriously.
My understanding is that the allegation is that the upper management was in on the cover-up, but I could be wrong in that.
The problem is that, should the execs who actually run the show decide to do criminal things like run a cover-up, what duty - and what ability - does the board have to prevent that? They are not cops.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
Jail is deterrence to the individuals. But what is deterring the institution as a whole? To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.
If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.
OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?
The claim isn't that the President covered up the crime, but that the President, Board of Regeants and whomever failed to exercise sufficient (or any) control or oversight over the football team. It's not a criminal offence, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very seriously.
My understanding is that the allegation is that the upper management was in on the cover-up, but I could be wrong in that.
The problem is that, should the execs who actually run the show decide to do criminal things like run a cover-up, what duty - and what ability - does the board have to prevent that? They are not cops.
It's a vicarious liability issue essentially. Plenty of cases have found institutions like universities liable for failing to provide adequate oversight (and plenty where they have not). Hell, here's the SCC saying how it happens:
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii693/1999canlii693.html
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 04:07:30 PM
I guess this kind of comes down to whether we consider the University an entity that exists over and above the individials who make up its adminstrators, and hence the sum of the policies, procdeures, and culture that make up that University is identifiaible (and worthy of being punished) outsde simple the individuals who happen to be filling some job at any particular moment.
It isn't ideal of course, but what is the alternative? If you never hold the organization responsible, then there really isn't any real enforcement - any school can simply cut the individuals free now and again, and escape any real penalty.
The purpose of holding the school accountable, even if the people are gone already, is to make current schools think "Hey, I better actually buy into the idea that we should do things the right way, rather than buy into the idea that we should be good at not getting caught".
Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.
I dunno. I'm just not getting why collective, institutional punishment is appropriate.
Perhaps an example would illustrate the issue. Say a famous, skilled player - a new OJ Simpson ( ;)) - murdered someone, and his coach found out about it. Intead of going to the cops, he went to the President of the university. Between them, they decided to help the player cover up the murder, maybe personally buried the victim on the 50 yard line.
To my mind, arresting all three is a no-brainer. They are all guilty as fuck, and ought to sit out the season- and many more - in a cell. What I would not understand, is imposing sanctions on the school. Maybe the school board exercised bad judgment in hiring these guys, but how do you know in advance who will do that? Having a policy that says "whatever you do, do not cover up murders. Do not bury the victims in the playing field" is all well and good, but really, you sorta expect people not to do that anyway, and if they are the sort that would, are they really going to listen to your policy? "Oh yeah, I was about to commit this crime, but then I read Article 5(B) of my University Code of Conduct, and realized it was a bad idea".
It wasn't a one time thing. Sandusky raped multiple children in the Penn State Athletic building and was witnessed doing so at least twice. Neither time did anyone go to the police. Sandusky, who had retired from the program a decade previously, still had an office in the Athletics building until just a year or two ago. People that knew he was a child rapist saw him on campus with children and did nothing about it. Even though he was no longer on the staff, and was a known child rapist, Sandusky continued to hang around the Penn Sate football program, and they say he used his connections to the Penn State football program as bait to lure children from his own charity into his predatory web.
Sandusky used the Penn State football program to attract children and used their facilities to rape those children and the University President, the VP in charge of Campus Safety, the Athletic Director, and the Head Football Coach knew about this for over a decade and not only chose to hide it, but helped to cover it up.
A janitor that witnessed Sandusky raping a child decided not to report it because he knew he would be fired and the charges would never go anywhere. The Penn State football culture was so incredibly broken it needed to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:51:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
Jail is deterrence to the individuals. But what is deterring the institution as a whole? To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.
If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.
OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?
The claim isn't that the President covered up the crime, but that the President, Board of Regeants and whomever failed to exercise sufficient (or any) control or oversight over the football team. It's not a criminal offence, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very seriously.
My understanding is that the allegation is that the upper management was in on the cover-up, but I could be wrong in that.
The problem is that, should the execs who actually run the show decide to do criminal things like run a cover-up, what duty - and what ability - does the board have to prevent that? They are not cops.
It's a vicarious liability issue essentially. Plenty of cases have found institutions like universities liable for failing to provide adequate oversight (and plenty where they have not). Hell, here's the SCC saying how it happens:
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii693/1999canlii693.html
I don't agree that this is a vicarious liability issue. Vicarious liability has to do with
compensating victims - essentially, as between an innocent victim and an employer, who should bear the risk of damage done by a criminal employee?
This has nothing to do with that. It isn't a balancing of who should bear the risk of damage. It is a punishment, imposed collectively. Victims are not being compensated for damages here; wrongdoers are being punished, presumably to discourage future wrongdoing.
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 04:59:48 PM
It wasn't a one time thing. Sandusky raped multiple children in the Penn State Athletic building and was witnessed doing so at least twice. Neither time did anyone go to the police. Sandusky, who had retired from the program a decade previously, still had an office in the Athletics building until just a year or two ago. People that knew he was a child rapist saw him on campus with children and did nothing about it. Even though he was no longer on the staff, and was a known child rapist, Sandusky continued to hang around the Penn Sate football program, and they say he used his connections to the Penn State football program as bait to lure children from his own charity into his predatory web.
Sandusky used the Penn State football program to attract children and used their facilities to rape those children and the University President, the VP in charge of Campus Safety, the Athletic Director, and the Head Football Coach knew about this for over a decade and not only chose to hide it, but helped to cover it up.
A janitor that witnessed Sandusky raping a child decided not to report it because he knew he would be fired and the charges would never go anywhere. The Penn State football culture was so incredibly broken it needed to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.
I know all of that. There is no question that the wrongdoing was extensive. But "culture" makes a bad, amorphous target for punishment. What's wrong with specifically identifying and punishing the actual wrongdoers?
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
I know all of that. There is no question that the wrongdoing was extensive. But "culture" makes a bad, amorphous target for punishment. What's wrong with specifically identifying and punishing the actual wrongdoers?
I agree with you but it arises from same rationale that says you can charge a corporation with a crime, which can and does happen.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 05:07:19 PM
]The punishments have always seemed arbitrary but there has always been due process for the charged institution. Indeed the articles I've read make clear that the NCAA knowingly dispensed with its own rules to enable itself to dispense summary justice and justified it by stating "there has never been a case like this."
Um yes there has been a case almost exactly like this. The Baylor case where the coach tried to cover up a murder to keep his guy playing, just like Penn State covered up for Sandusky and allowed him to keep coaching. Granted Baylor school cooperated alot more thoroughly (I think they blew the whistle on their coach IIRC) but that is a BS excuse. Considering how obvious the violations are it does seem odd the NCAA would do some sort of bending of the rules. The old rules allowed it to hammer Baylor Basketball with very similar penalties (well...except for the size of the fine). So surely if they had left the old procedures in place the resulting penalties probably would have been similar. Why did they do it in this case? Any speculation?
Didn't they technically hammer the school because they found recruiting violations/impermissible benefits? Sure they went after them because of the murder, and the punished them so hard because of it, but they used the fig leaf of the violations to do it. So far no violations at Penn state have been found.
The NCAA had a different president then though. This one probably would have hammered them explicitly for covering up the murder.
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
My personal opinion is that the halfway house between high school and the pros of collegiate football/basketball isn't working and is getting worse all the time. Better to cut them loose and turn them into actual minor leagues instead of distorting the focus of higher education.
I heard Brent Musburger musing about that this morning on the Mike and Mike show. Although he came to the conclusion that it is too late to go in that direction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2012, 05:12:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
I know all of that. There is no question that the wrongdoing was extensive. But "culture" makes a bad, amorphous target for punishment. What's wrong with specifically identifying and punishing the actual wrongdoers?
I agree with you but it arises from same rationale that says you can charge a corporation with a crime, which can and does happen.
That makes sense in the context of
regulatory offences, because where the "crime" consists of breaching regulations to make a profit, identifying who actually made the call may be impossible or not cost-effective for the regulator - better to hit the company in the pocketbook.
That sort of efficiency argument doesn't seem to make as much sense in a case like this, where serious personal-injury offences are involved and hardcore investigations undertaken to root out the actual perps.
Do corporations ever get charged with crimes like murder or rape, or covering up the same? I don't think they do here in Canada.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:51:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
Jail is deterrence to the individuals. But what is deterring the institution as a whole? To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.
If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.
OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?
The claim isn't that the President covered up the crime, but that the President, Board of Regeants and whomever failed to exercise sufficient (or any) control or oversight over the football team. It's not a criminal offence, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very seriously.
My understanding is that the allegation is that the upper management was in on the cover-up, but I could be wrong in that.
The problem is that, should the execs who actually run the show decide to do criminal things like run a cover-up, what duty - and what ability - does the board have to prevent that? They are not cops.
It's a vicarious liability issue essentially. Plenty of cases have found institutions like universities liable for failing to provide adequate oversight (and plenty where they have not). Hell, here's the SCC saying how it happens:
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii693/1999canlii693.html
Ok so why is the NCAA stepping into the area of civil jurisdiction and imposing penalties for the breach of the law of negligence rather then a breach of NCAA rules?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2012, 05:12:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
I know all of that. There is no question that the wrongdoing was extensive. But "culture" makes a bad, amorphous target for punishment. What's wrong with specifically identifying and punishing the actual wrongdoers?
I agree with you but it arises from same rationale that says you can charge a corporation with a crime, which can and does happen.
except that in those circumstances they are the acts of the corporation - although carried out by individuals. Does not translate well in this instance.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
I know all of that. There is no question that the wrongdoing was extensive. But "culture" makes a bad, amorphous target for punishment.
It's not a great target, but it's a necessary target. PSU is an extreme example of what can happen when a man or program becomes more important than the institution, but it isn't the only case.
QuoteWhat's wrong with specifically identifying and punishing the actual wrongdoers?
Do some research, and you will find out that this was done as well. We needn't make a choice between sanctioning an institution for allowing one of its programs to proceed without checks and balances, and punishing individual perpetrators. We can do both.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
That makes sense in the context of regulatory offences, because where the "crime" consists of breaching regulations to make a profit, identifying who actually made the call may be impossible or not cost-effective for the regulator - better to hit the company in the pocketbook.
Which is really a classic "civil" case, not criminal. If the breach, then there should be evidence of individual knowledge or conduct.
QuoteDo corporations ever get charged with crimes like murder or rape, or covering up the same?
Corps in the US have been charged with criminally negligent homicide.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:25:36 PM
except that in those circumstances they are the acts of the corporation - although carried out by individuals.
The question is - can an organization be subject to collective punishment for the bad acts of its agents or constituent members? Seems like the same thing to me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2012, 05:33:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:25:36 PM
except that in those circumstances they are the acts of the corporation - although carried out by individuals.
The question is - can an organization be subject to collective punishment for the bad acts of its agents or constituent members? Seems like the same thing to me.
The context of when collective punishment is imposed is the critical question. For example it is settled law here in Canada that if a person was acting outside the scope of their duties then the corporation/institution will not be held liable.
As Malthus mentioned there are strict liability offences and regulations. But in those situations there are clear rules - one of the requirements of a strict liability offence being upheld by the courts. Here, as I understand it there is no such thing. The NCAA appears to have imposed these penalties by fiat over matters properly dealt with through the criminal or civil courts.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 03:27:49 PM
I do not agree with this at all.
The very point of making these punishments extremely harsh is to convince administrators that the cost of the cover-up is worse than the cost of coming clean.
That is the entire purpose behind all NCAA sanctions.
This is truly a classic case of the need to make an example. Not so much an example of what happens when you let assistant coaches fuck minors in your locker (I certianly hope that is a isolate incident) but what happens when you let the football culture dominate the university culture so much that basic integrity is somehow lost.
Hopefully this is very much an eye opening experience for not just PSU (and honestly, PSU had their eyes opened before anyone slapped them with these penalties) but for other university presidents and athletic directors. The penalty for losing focus to this extent should be extreme, otherwise you are right - it won't stop.
I think part of the reason you have these insular and secretive sports programs is precisely because of the NCAA rules around student athletes. They develop cultures of keeping things quiet to avoid some violation of the NCAA's rules from becoming public. As the multi-billion dollar collegiate sport's industry grows larger and the penalties for NCAA violations become more punitive I don't see the secrecy lessening.
I'd be surprised if the Sandusky cover-up started as a concern over NCAA rules. I'd like to think that Paterno and co. started out not believing the accusations. Not because it excuses them but at least it would mean they didn't think they were protecting a child molester right from the start. If they still didn't believe the evidence in 2002 they either had a huge blind spot towards Sandusky or decided they were trapped in the cover-up. The problem is the insularity and secrecy built to avoid external threats (like NCAA sanctions) let them get away with it for so long.
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2012, 07:24:30 PM
I think part of the reason you have these insular and secretive sports programs is precisely because of the NCAA rules around student athletes. They develop cultures of keeping things quiet to avoid some violation of the NCAA's rules from becoming public. As the multi-billion dollar collegiate sport's industry grows larger and the penalties for NCAA violations become more punitive I don't see the secrecy lessening.
Ah the "everybody is doing it" defense. And the penalties for NCAA violations are not becoming more punitive. What are you basing this on?
QuoteI'd be surprised if the Sandusky cover-up started as a concern over NCAA rules. I'd like to think that Paterno and co. started out not believing the accusations. Not because it excuses them but at least it would mean they didn't think they were protecting a child molester right from the start. If they still didn't believe the evidence in 2002 they either had a huge blind spot towards Sandusky or decided they were trapped in the cover-up. The problem is the insularity and secrecy built to avoid external threats (like NCAA sanctions) let them get away with it for so long.
Did you read the report or are you just guessing here? And LOL that the problem was fending off the NCAA. The NCAA would never have suspected Penn State of wrong doing in a million years.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2012, 05:33:03 PM
The question is - can an organization be subject to collective punishment for the bad acts of its agents or constituent members? Seems like the same thing to me.
My question is how else could you do it? The NCAA has very limited ability to punish individuals.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:44:43 PM
The NCAA appears to have imposed these penalties by fiat over matters properly dealt with through the criminal or civil courts.
There is a criminal matter here but there is also the fact it involved covering up a crime so a coach could coach. Nobody has yet to explain they that is not an NCAA violation. I guess so long as crimes are committed you can go ahead and not obey NCAA rules?
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 07:49:55 PM
Ah the "everybody is doing it" defense. And the penalties for NCAA violations are not becoming more punitive. What are you basing this on?
I'm not defending anybody, and I consider it a terrible trend. Perhaps not more punitive, but they've been more stringent in enforcing the rules.
Quote
Did you read the report or are you just guessing here? And LOL that the problem was fending off the NCAA. The NCAA would never have suspected Penn State of wrong doing in a million years.
I'm guessing, and there's a reason the NCAA would never suspect Penn State.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2012, 04:07:30 PM
I guess this kind of comes down to whether we consider the University an entity that exists over and above the individials who make up its adminstrators, and hence the sum of the policies, procdeures, and culture that make up that University is identifiaible (and worthy of being punished) outsde simple the individuals who happen to be filling some job at any particular moment.
It isn't ideal of course, but what is the alternative? If you never hold the organization responsible, then there really isn't any real enforcement - any school can simply cut the individuals free now and again, and escape any real penalty.
The purpose of holding the school accountable, even if the people are gone already, is to make current schools think "Hey, I better actually buy into the idea that we should do things the right way, rather than buy into the idea that we should be good at not getting caught".
Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.
I dunno. I'm just not getting why collective, institutional punishment is appropriate.
Perhaps an example would illustrate the issue. Say a famous, skilled player - a new OJ Simpson ( ;)) - murdered someone, and his coach found out about it. Intead of going to the cops, he went to the President of the university. Between them, they decided to help the player cover up the murder, maybe personally buried the victim on the 50 yard line.
To my mind, arresting all three is a no-brainer. They are all guilty as fuck, and ought to sit out the season- and many more - in a cell. What I would not understand, is imposing sanctions on the school. Maybe the school board exercised bad judgment in hiring these guys, but how do you know in advance who will do that? Having a policy that says "whatever you do, do not cover up murders. Do not bury the victims in the playing field" is all well and good, but really, you sorta expect people not to do that anyway, and if they are the sort that would, are they really going to listen to your policy? "Oh yeah, I was about to commit this crime, but then I read Article 5(B) of my University Code of Conduct, and realized it was a bad idea".
I think that the universities making up the NCAA would state that the primary purpose of their institutions is to educate and instill civic minded virtues, with athletic competitions serving as secondary but supporting missions to that purpose. This seems to be a case where the president, AD, and iconic head football coach covered up child rape to prevent harm to the football program.
I know the NCAA cited other reasons, but I don't have a problem with the other collective universities taking a stand that this is unacceptable and putting strong conditions to returning to competition. If college competition is going to claim to have any standards whatsoever, there needs to be a way to sanction institutions that violate those standards.
Each school is a corporation--essentially just a filing in some government office somewhere. That filing has neither virtues nor vices. If you can't judge a school by what its senior leadership does, then it is going to be difficult to have institutional standards of conduct.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 07:55:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:44:43 PM
The NCAA appears to have imposed these penalties by fiat over matters properly dealt with through the criminal or civil courts.
There is a criminal matter here but there is also the fact it involved covering up a crime so a coach could coach. Nobody has yet to explain they that is not an NCAA violation. I guess so long as crimes are committed you can go ahead and not obey NCAA rules?
Uh, no, Sandusky "retired" as an assistant coach in 1999. Whatever the motivation for what when on, it clearly wasn't to allow him to coach.
He coached the 1999 season didn't he? So he did coach one season after they knew he might have a problem.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 07:55:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:44:43 PM
The NCAA appears to have imposed these penalties by fiat over matters properly dealt with through the criminal or civil courts.
There is a criminal matter here but there is also the fact it involved covering up a crime so a coach could coach. Nobody has yet to explain they that is not an NCAA violation. I guess so long as crimes are committed you can go ahead and not obey NCAA rules?
And you have yet to explain to me how Sandusky's sexual assualt is a violation of NCAA rules. As for the cover up. That also would have criminal as well as civil consequences. The example Malthus gave earlier is apt.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2012, 07:57:40 PM
I know the NCAA cited other reasons, but I don't have a problem with the other collective universities taking a stand that this is unacceptable and putting strong conditions to returning to competition. If college competition is going to claim to have any standards whatsoever, there needs to be a way to sanction institutions that violate those standards.
Each school is a corporation--essentially just a filing in some government office somewhere. That filing has neither virtues nor vices. If you can't judge a school by what its senior leadership does, then it is going to be difficult to have institutional standards of conduct.
The reason the NCAA had to cite other reasons is because there is nothing in the NCAA rules dealing with this because the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. If one wishes to speak of standards then the usual thing is to create those standards and then hold people to them. What happened here is the imposition of a penalty based on a standard of "culture" newly created for this occasion. It is arbitrary in the worst sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
The reason the NCAA had to cite other reasons is because there is nothing in the NCAA rules dealing with this because the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Nah, those are still in the hands of the court system.
What, it is awesome to watch CC just go nuts over stuff he has already admitted he knows exactly fuck all about.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2012, 12:05:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
The reason the NCAA had to cite other reasons is because there is nothing in the NCAA rules dealing with this because the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Nah, those are still in the hands of the court system.
Exactly the point. The NCAA has penalized conduct which is before the courts and over which the NCAA has no jurisdiction at all.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:06:40 AM
What, it is awesome to watch CC just go nuts over stuff he has already admitted he knows exactly fuck all about.
What is funny is watching you go nuts over something which you think you know about but it seems actually know nothing at all.
And for someone that cries whenever he thinks his position is being mistated you really like doing it to others. Respect for Berk -infinity.
I make no claim to knowing anymore about how the NCAA works than is obvious from the report of the NCAA chair. I am not the one claiming they have failed due process, made up rules, are "taking over civil AND criminal jurisdiction" blahblahblah.
Yes, clearly that is what the NCAA has done - they have "taken over...criminal jurisdiction". Off PSU goes to NCAA jail!
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2012, 12:05:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
The reason the NCAA had to cite other reasons is because there is nothing in the NCAA rules dealing with this because the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Nah, those are still in the hands of the court system.
Exactly the point. The NCAA has penalized conduct which is before the courts and over which the NCAA has no jurisdiction at all.
:huh:
Just because the criminal process is involved doesn't mean anyone and everyone can't also be involved.
If an employee commits a theft you don't have to wait for the criminal process to take place before firing them.
Let him go, he is on a roll.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 12:50:33 AM
Let him go, he is on a roll.
I for one appreciate a subtle Animal House reference. :worthy:
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 12:52:03 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 12:50:33 AM
Let him go, he is on a roll.
I for one appreciate a subtle Animal House reference. :worthy:
:D
I had to check IMDB after I posted that and according to them I didn't get it quite right. They say it was:
Forget it, he's rollin'.
But I appreciate that someone was able to get it. :cheers:
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 06:18:37 PM
Does this change anything with the law-talkers in the house?
http://espn.go.com/new-york/ncf/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998
QuoteWhat did Penn State sign?
Munson: When Penn State president Rodney Erickson signed the consent decree imposed by the NCAA, he and the school agreed not only to the punishments but also to the monitoring, the supervision and to an enforcement process. This is not just a settlement contract. It is the document that governs enforcement and provides for penalties if Penn State screws up.
These agreements are typically negotiated by two organizations in the middle of a dispute. There is no indication of a negotiation or even a minimal role by Penn State or its president and his lawyers. A typical decree would say that Penn State neither admits nor denies wrongdoing. This decree is all about wrongdoing with Penn State admitting everything.
Consent decrees are ordinarily sterile legal documents, but this one expresses outrage. The decree states the evidence against Penn State "presents an unprecedented failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem than the values of the institution, the values of the NCAA, the values of higher education, and, most disturbingly, the values of human decency."
Penn State did not negotiate this document. Penn State surrendered to the terms of this document.
It is possible for a wealthy alumnus, a season-ticket holder, a coach, a taxpayer or even a student-athlete to file a lawsuit challenging the sanctions and the consent decree. But any lawsuits are doomed to failure. Erickson's signature on the consent decree means that the university has agreed to the sanctions and to be bound by them for five years.
No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do. Penn State expressly agrees that it cannot be challenged with "judicial process." Anyone who files a lawsuit would face not only an early dismissal of the case but also the payment of the legal fees incurred by the NCAA and Penn State as they obtain the dismissal. The lawsuit would be an expensive failure.
-- Lester Munson
pdf of the decree:
http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0723/pennstateconclusions.pdf
Yes; given that penn state signed a consent decree I am not as concerned about its not having due process as penn state waived it. I remain troubled by the NCAA's power grab but will soon be over it if the NCAA will reset it's sights on Miami (of fla) whose misconduct violated specific rules and whose misconduct impacted the playing field. :)
I would be content if the NCAA waived its magic post facto game wand and merely ruled that all field goal attempts against Miami from 1991 to 2001 were ruled good.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2012, 06:21:15 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 23, 2012, 05:04:20 PM
Whether the facts are true or not is immaterial to whether penn state had the right to respond. Perhaps penn state might have indicated freeh missed something material. Perhaps penn state might have admitted the facts but contested the authority of the NCAA to regulate how penn state deals with the misconduct of a former coach whose heinous misdeeds and the cover up by the school, institutionalizing and aiding in the crime, never provided penn state with a competitive advantage on the field. Perhaps penn state would've just committed suicide like himmler and fallen on its sword. We don't know, but before judgment was rendered we should've.
I'm missing something. Where was Penn State not given a chance to challenge anything? The NCAA acted like they always do: investigation, subject institution response, decision, announcement. If this is "mob rule" then the term has no meaning.
The NCAA did not follow its own rules. That was the source of my objection.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 12:24:58 PM
My Google-Fu led me to some random forum where I found this. No idea who the guy is but his argument is long the lines I have been thinking, just expressed properly.
QuoteFrom what has been written, Penn State will accept the penalties proposed by the NCAA. Thus, by accepting the penalties (in essence, pleading guilty), they are waiving any due process rights they may have.
If Penn State did not want to accept the penalties, they could appeal. They would go through the administrative appeals process initially, and if they failed to overturn the penalties, they would have then gone through the court system.
If they wanted to go through the court system immediately, they could go to federal court and ask for an injunction against the NCAA in order to prevent them from enforcing their penalty. A judge would decide whether they were entitled to injunctive relief. Even if no injunction was issued, Penn State could go to trial against the NCAA.
My point is that I don't see where anyone's due process rights are being taken away, including Penn State's. Of course, there is no assurance they would get injunctive relief, win in court, or win anywhere. However, Penn State would not have to win the case in order to have been given due process...due process would have been afforded them with a hearing or hearings as described, above, where they would be given a chance to have argued their case before their property was taken from them.
Ok I see now. The fact that they agreed to a punishment that was pronounced without due process means they waived due process. That is some special kind of logic. If PSU had waived having a fair determination (which would be exceedingly odd for them to do) before the disciplinary decision was handed down that would deflate any argument they were entitled to it.
But this is different. Here the NCAA came to a decision without due process and its a take it or leave the NCAA proposition.
I am not sure what court process is available to PSU. If the law in the US is the same as it is in Canada the courts would likely not interfere in the decision of a domestic tribunal such as the NCAA. Which, again, given the consequences of the decision, is why the NCAA should strain to ensure its decisions are arrived at in a fair manner.
as I read it they were asked to sign a consent decree that waived due process and agreed to the process. Penn state was clearly denied due process but at the end, before institution of sanctions, penn state chose not to object and agreed to it. It's a bit harder to get worked up over the issue when penn state doesn't seem to care.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2012, 12:05:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
The reason the NCAA had to cite other reasons is because there is nothing in the NCAA rules dealing with this because the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Nah, those are still in the hands of the court system.
Exactly the point. The NCAA has penalized conduct which is before the courts and over which the NCAA has no jurisdiction at all.
That would've been my argument had I been penn state's counsel and i believe it may be correct.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2012, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
I know all of that. There is no question that the wrongdoing was extensive. But "culture" makes a bad, amorphous target for punishment.
It's not a great target, but it's a necessary target. PSU is an extreme example of what can happen when a man or program becomes more important than the institution, but it isn't the only case.
QuoteWhat's wrong with specifically identifying and punishing the actual wrongdoers?
Do some research, and you will find out that this was done as well. We needn't make a choice between sanctioning an institution for allowing one of its programs to proceed without checks and balances, and punishing individual perpetrators. We can do both.
I know it was done. What I'm questioning is why it is necessary to punish the institution.
It can't be a matter of actual, specific, individual deterrence, since as you have stated the actual individuals actually responsible were in fact punished, and it defies belief that having (say) a restriction on scholarships is a really necessary or effective deterrence to those persons fired or jailed.
It must be a general deterrence to the organization itself - implying that the institution can and should have done something different, that they are at least in part responsible.
Is the target of the deterrence the governing body? That indicates that the governing body is at fault, that they failed in their duty. This is however not proven. Where top administrators conspire to commit a crime, what exactly can the Board do to stop them, preemptively? Can they hire private investigators? Should they? Do they have a positive duty to do so?
That seems problematic to me.
What we have left is deterrence aimed at the "culture" of football itself, within the institution. That to me is problematic. It is true that "culture" can influence actions, but it seems bad policy to aim punsihments at "culture", rather than at individuals - even when one can do both.
Not that I care one whit about college football, let alone this specific university.
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2012, 09:19:37 AM
What we have left is deterrence aimed at the "culture" of football itself, within the institution. That to me is problematic. It is true that "culture" can influence actions, but it seems bad policy to aim punsihments at "culture", rather than at individuals - even when one can do both.
Not that I care one whit about college football, let alone this specific university.
Why? The US has often tried to change the cultures of it's enemies or of certain subcultures within it's own society. Sometimes with success, sometimes without it. Why shouldn't the NCAA be able to do the same?
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2012, 09:19:37 AM
I know it was done. What I'm questioning is why it is necessary to punish the institution.
Well, it isn't "the institution" that is being "punished," but the program. And the reason it is being "punished" is that it fostered a culture in which janitors, for instance, knew what was going on but feared to speak because they were convinced that the program's leadership was okay with child rape. Such a program and culture isn't going to fix itself; individuals can be puniished for specific crimes, but you also need to shock the program out of its crime-tolerating culture, and incentivize other programs to look to see if they are not vulnerable to that sort of culture themselves.
QuoteIt can't be a matter of actual, specific, individual deterrence, since as you have stated the actual individuals actually responsible were in fact punished, and it defies belief that having (say) a restriction on scholarships is a really necessary or effective deterrence to those persons fired or jailed.
Not sure who you are making this argument to, or what argument you think you are countering.
QuoteIt must be a general deterrence to the organization itself - implying that the institution can and should have done something different, that they are at least in part responsible.
It
must be? I won't argue with argument by assertion. I'll just note that is an argument by assertion.
QuoteIs the target of the deterrence the governing body? That indicates that the governing body is at fault, that they failed in their duty. This is however not proven. Where top administrators conspire to commit a crime, what exactly can the Board do to stop them, preemptively? Can they hire private investigators? Should they? Do they have a positive duty to do so?
The target of the deterrence is all boards of governors/directors/regents, as well as school administrations. They have an oversight responsibility, and the responsibility to make sure that the employees of the institution know that the board will step in if the employees indicate that the administrators are out of line. The tolerance of Sandusky wasn't a secret known only to a few at the top.
QuoteWhat we have left is deterrence aimed at the "culture" of football itself, within the institution. That to me is problematic. It is true that "culture" can influence actions, but it seems bad policy to aim punsihments at "culture", rather than at individuals - even when one can do both.
It isn't problematic with me. I'd have preferred the university do it to themselves, but PSU's board and president were remarkable for their passiveness even after the shakeup at the top.
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2011, 10:52:03 PM
Wow, the University let Sandusky run over night camps on campus as recently as 2009.
http://deadspin.com/5856887/as-recently-as-2009-jerry-sandusky-was-running-an-overnight-football-camp-for-kids-on-penn-state-campuses
My uncle is really good friends with Curley, to the degree that when he goes up to PSU games (he's an alum) he stays at Curley's house. I'll be interested to hear his take on this whole fiasco.
So, Cal, any news on this front? What's been your uncle's reaction?
Quote from: Rasputin on July 25, 2012, 04:23:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2012, 12:05:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
The reason the NCAA had to cite other reasons is because there is nothing in the NCAA rules dealing with this because the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Nah, those are still in the hands of the court system.
Exactly the point. The NCAA has penalized conduct which is before the courts and over which the NCAA has no jurisdiction at all.
That would've been my argument had I been penn state's counsel and i believe it may be correct.
If only the NCAA rules barred "unethical conduct" by an athlete or employee / former employee of the institution, then the NCAA would have had some way to act!
...wait, what's that again? Section 10.1?
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 07:51:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2012, 05:33:03 PM
The question is - can an organization be subject to collective punishment for the bad acts of its agents or constituent members? Seems like the same thing to me.
My question is how else could you do it? The NCAA has very limited ability to punish individuals.
It's been answered already in this thread - there exist other institutions who do have this power and have not been shy about exercising it. The situtation might be different if we were talking about pseudo-"regulatory" matters like the NCAA's own internal rules about recruitment, etc. which don't implicate any background societal rules. The Attorney General is not going to enforce recruiting violations. But you do have a situation where a voluntary association can decide the terms on which the associations is based and who can and should be admitted or expelled - assuming that antitrust concerns are not implicating.
Of course that same analysis can be used to support the NCAA's power to do what they have done to Penn State. The question is whether that is appropriate under the circumstances, or whether this is just the NCAA beating its chest and expressing moral outrage. Because when I look at the sanctions, they seem notable for the fact that they have little impact on any of the wrongdoers and lots of impact on innocent parties:
+$60 million - this is basically confiscating endowment money given in good faith by innocent donors, which the likely effect of harming faculty, students and the university's academic mission. None of the individuals who committed the bad acts are harmed by this.
+ postseason ban: punishes the innocent student-athletes who previously committed to PSU and now are deprived of the opportunity to participate in bowl games for events that occured years ago that they had no responsibility for.
+ Stripping past wins: a sanction that only Orwell could dream up of - and an attempt to erase the historical achievements of thousands of totally innocent student-athletes. And to what end? So that a now dead ex-coach can be moved down a few ranks in the official NCAA W-L records?
The fact is that none of the bad actions here were committed by a "program". Abstract nouns don't rape children and they don't cover up rape. Actual human beings do these things. Here the actual human beings that committed bad acts have been subject to the full investigatory powers and sanctions of the state. And if that is not deemed sufficient, and the NCAA wants to punish those who it believes were negligent in supervision - then IT SHOULD DO THAT.
I.e., something like this:
PSU has __ months to fire every administrator involved in the cover up, and replace every Trustee/Board member resonsbile for selecting and supervising those administrators. PSU shall put in place the following rules and procedures (Exhibit A) to make sure this doesn't happen again. If PSU doesn't comply, we will kick them out of the association for good.
Something like that would target that actual individuals responsible, and put everyone else similarly situated on notice, while at the same time not causing collateral damage to innocent students, faculty, donors, alumni, etc.
What the NCAA had done instead is the opposite - impose a set of draconian measures that leaves the guilty parties essentially untouched while harming just about everyone else - all in the name of whipping the hell out of some abtract construct - "The Program"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 10:23:12 AM
+$60 million - this is basically confiscating endowment money given in good faith by innocent donors, which the likely effect of harming faculty, students and the university's academic mission. None of the individuals who committed the bad acts are harmed by this.
+ postseason ban: punishes the innocent student-athletes who previously committed to PSU and now are deprived of the opportunity to participate in bowl games for events that occured years ago that they had no responsibility for.
+ Stripping past wins: a sanction that only Orwell could dream up of - and an attempt to erase the historical achievements of thousands of totally innocent student-athletes. And to what end? So that a now dead ex-coach can be moved down a few ranks in the official NCAA W-L records?
Doesn't the punishment require that the 60 million dollars come only from the football program and not from University general funds or other athletic programs?
As for post season ban and stripping past wins, those are common NCAA sanctions and they always harm players who had nothing to do with the crime.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2012, 10:32:58 AM
Doesn't the punishment require that the 60 million dollars come only from the football program and not from University general funds or other athletic programs?
I don't see any such limitation in the sanction order. It is a straight $60 million fine. And in any case, such a limitation would be pointless given the fungibility of money.
QuoteAs for post season ban and stripping past wins, those are common NCAA sanctions and they always harm players who had nothing to do with the crime.
The fact that foolish things may have been commonly done in the past is not a persuasive argument for doing them again in the present. I also think, that at least with respect to limitations on scholarships and recruiting, that there is some justifiable linkage in thoses cases where the "crime" consists of violations of recruiting rules. At least there the collateral damage is a little more limited and there is some logical connection betweent the violation and the punishment.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2012, 10:32:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 10:23:12 AM
+$60 million - this is basically confiscating endowment money given in good faith by innocent donors, which the likely effect of harming faculty, students and the university's academic mission. None of the individuals who committed the bad acts are harmed by this.
+ postseason ban: punishes the innocent student-athletes who previously committed to PSU and now are deprived of the opportunity to participate in bowl games for events that occured years ago that they had no responsibility for.
+ Stripping past wins: a sanction that only Orwell could dream up of - and an attempt to erase the historical achievements of thousands of totally innocent student-athletes. And to what end? So that a now dead ex-coach can be moved down a few ranks in the official NCAA W-L records?
Doesn't the punishment require that the 60 million dollars come only from the football program and not from University general funds or other athletic programs?
No, it doesn't have to come from the football program. I get a lot of info from the radio so no exact quotes or links, but they said the fine cannot come at the expense of other athletic programs and they hoped it wouldn't affect any academic programs. I also heard from someone that the PSU athletic department had a huge surplus last year, like in the $30 million range. I will see if I can find something on that.
Considering PSU's alumni base I would think coming up with $12 million a year for 5 years wouldn't be all that hard to find donations for.
How does stripping wins harm players?
That is an entirely symbolic gesture - important nonetheless in the world of college football - but entirely symbolic.
And it only harms those who care about such symbols, which I suspect are not the individual athletes (they care about indifividual records, not W-L of the program in general). I seriously doubt any of them care one bit, or think that their accomplishments are in any way degraded.
MM, I think you are ignoring another perspective (I'm with you on the fine, btw). The NCAA can't effectively enforce penalties against individuals, so it must resort to punishing institutions. The NCAA has general guidelines for conduct, which Penn State apparently egregiously violated, and more specific rules regarding recruiting, etc. which don't apply here.
How can the NCAA credibly force another school to vacate wins, endure a postseason ban, etc. because the administration turned a blind eye to players getting free tattoos while not doing anything to Penn State?
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 10:47:42 AM
How does stripping wins harm players?
That is an entirely symbolic gesture - important nonetheless in the world of college football - but entirely symbolic.
I think you just answered your own question.
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
Since there is no purpose beyond symbolism and since the symbolism is largely a giant FU to lots of people who were innocent, what is the point?
This is all in addition to the fact that the whole notion of rewriting history as some kind of symbolic punishment is bizarre and Orwellian to begin with.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 10:53:06 AM
I think you just answered your own question.
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
Since there is no purpose beyond symbolism and since the symbolism is largely a giant FU to lots of people who were innocent, what is the point?
This is all in addition to the fact that the whole notion of rewriting history as some kind of symbolic punishment is bizarre and Orwellian to begin with.
But apparently this is a standard NCAA punishment when you are found to be committing some serious violation. I agree it is a crappy punishment in general if that is the argument, but if it is going to be applied for impermissable tattoos then why not here?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 10:48:01 AM
MM, I think you are ignoring another perspective (I'm with you on the fine, btw). The NCAA can't effectively enforce penalties against individuals, so it must resort to punishing institutions. The NCAA has general guidelines for conduct, which Penn State apparently egregiously violated, and more specific rules regarding recruiting, etc. which don't apply here.
The NCAA has one overaraching power, which is the power to say who is and who is not a member. If they want to leverage that, they could.
I've read the applicable rules here and don't entirely agree with the view that the rules clearly permit the sanctions that issues in this case. It is at the very least a big stretch to claim that the "ethics" rules were intended to capture this specific kind of conduct, and it looks to me like 10.4 says that consequence of violation is disciplinary action against the offending "Institutional staff members" not the whole institution.
So yes - you could say that my not-so modest proposal would exceed proper NCAA authority, but that would be like the NCAA protesting that there can't be any wallabys on its kangaroo court.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
But apparently this is a standard NCAA punishment when you are found to be committing some serious violation. I agree it is a crappy punishment in general if that is the argument, but if it is going to be applied for impermissable tattoos then why not here?
Because as I responded to Tim, I don't accept arguments in the form: we did something breathtakingly stupid and pointless in the past, therefore we should keep doing it for the sake of consistency.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 10:23:12 AM
+$60 million - this is basically confiscating endowment money given in good faith by innocent donors, which the likely effect of harming faculty, students and the university's academic mission. None of the individuals who committed the bad acts are harmed by this.
I agree that this element of the sanction was not well-thought-out. This amount of money means nothing to PSU, and it is unclear how fining any money whatsoever achieves a purpose.
Quote+ postseason ban: punishes the innocent student-athletes who previously committed to PSU and now are deprived of the opportunity to participate in bowl games for events that occured years ago that they had no responsibility for.
If playing in bowls means that much to the players, they can freely leave. I think this sanction is apt.
Quote+ Stripping past wins: a sanction that only Orwell could dream up of - and an attempt to erase the historical achievements of thousands of totally innocent student-athletes. And to what end? So that a now dead ex-coach can be moved down a few ranks in the official NCAA W-L records?
While this sanction is silly, the arguments that it is "an attempt to erase the historical achievements of thousands of totally innocent student-athletes" is just as silly. This is a non-issue.
QuoteThe fact is that none of the bad actions here were committed by a "program". Abstract nouns don't rape children and they don't cover up rape. Actual human beings do these things. Here the actual human beings that committed bad acts have been subject to the full investigatory powers and sanctions of the state. And if that is not deemed sufficient, and the NCAA wants to punish those who it believes were negligent in supervision - then IT SHOULD DO THAT.
The NCAA has no power to do that. The NCAA has no power to, in fact, compel anyone to testify nor to collect any evidence except voluntarily. The only reason the NCAA gets cooperation is because it can sanction the program, which is what you are arguing against.
QuoteI.e., something like this:
PSU has __ months to fire every administrator involved in the cover up, and replace every Trustee/Board member resonsbile for selecting and supervising those administrators. PSU shall put in place the following rules and procedures (Exhibit A) to make sure this doesn't happen again. If PSU doesn't comply, we will kick them out of the association for good.
No good. Kicking PSU out of the NCAA would harm all the innocents you mentioned above, and wouldn't punish the individuals.
QuoteSomething like that would target that actual individuals responsible, and put everyone else similarly situated on notice, while at the same time not causing collateral damage to innocent students, faculty, donors, alumni, etc.
If the NCAA shouldn't sanction programs for the actions of individuals, then it has no powers at all. You are arguing that the NCAA should threaten to do exactly what you are arguing against, rather than just doing it. If "punishing the innocent" is to be avoided at all costs, then you cannot morally argue that you do so by threatening to "punish the innocent."
QuoteWhat the NCAA had done instead is the opposite - impose a set of draconian measures that leaves the guilty parties essentially untouched while harming just about everyone else - all in the name of whipping the hell out of some abtract construct - "The Program"
The NCAA uses the leverage it has. The "guilty parties" in this case are being punished by the law, and that's not the NCAA's bailiwick.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 10:47:42 AM
How does stripping wins harm players?
That is an entirely symbolic gesture - important nonetheless in the world of college football - but entirely symbolic.
I think you just answered your own question.
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
Since there is no purpose beyond symbolism and since the symbolism is largely a giant FU to lots of people who were innocent, what is the point?
This is all in addition to the fact that the whole notion of rewriting history as some kind of symbolic punishment is bizarre and Orwellian to begin with.
Is that only in this case, or in all the other cases where the NCAA has stripped wins for, say, ineligible players playing in those games? Doesn't that also harm the players who were NOT inelgible?
The entire "It harms the innocent!" argument has no real weight with me - all punitive measures harm the innocent. The point to them is that absent those punitive measures, allowing whoever you are punishing to do whatever it is they are doing (and those who will do similar things in the future without this kind of control) MORE innocent people will be harmed.
In this case, the harm was extreme - PSU allowed a man to rape children rather than taint their precious legacy of football greatness. It sucks that lots of people are going to be harmed as a result of this, but the onus for that responsibility falls on PSU for allowing it to happen, not on the NCAA for imposing the penalties. You might as well blame the judge for my kid not having a place to live when he throws me in jail for killing someone. It is not the judges fault, it is the perpetrators fault.
I think there is in fact purpose behind symbolism. In this case, the symbolism rather nicely strikes only at those for whom sybmols are important, like the people who care about Penn States W/L record. It does not directly harm the athletes themselves at all - none of their records or stats are effected. They still rushed for however many yards, still threw however many TD passes, etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 10:53:06 AM
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
An amusing notion, but just a notion you have. I know of no one else who thinks vacating wins is "saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity."
It is symbolic - it means that everything the program's leadership accomplished while covering up the scandal is vacated. Justin Kurpeikis is still a former all-Big-Ten offensive lineman.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 11:00:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 10:48:01 AM
MM, I think you are ignoring another perspective (I'm with you on the fine, btw). The NCAA can't effectively enforce penalties against individuals, so it must resort to punishing institutions. The NCAA has general guidelines for conduct, which Penn State apparently egregiously violated, and more specific rules regarding recruiting, etc. which don't apply here.
The NCAA has one overaraching power, which is the power to say who is and who is not a member. If they want to leverage that, they could.
I've read the applicable rules here and don't entirely agree with the view that the rules clearly permit the sanctions that issues in this case. It is at the very least a big stretch to claim that the "ethics" rules were intended to capture this specific kind of conduct, and it looks to me like 10.4 says that consequence of violation is disciplinary action against the offending "Institutional staff members" not the whole institution.
So yes - you could say that my not-so modest proposal would exceed proper NCAA authority, but that would be like the NCAA protesting that there can't be any wallabys on its kangaroo court.
It seems they are exercising that one overarching power, only more modestly. Regardless of what the rules say, I doubt it can enforce most of its sanctions against anyone. If Penn State decides to claim wins from 1998 unilaterally, offer more athletic scholarships than allowed, or ignore other aspects of the sanctions, ultimately the recourse of the NCAA is to expel Penn State.
There are lots of rumours that Rodriguez is going after several PSU players pretty hard...
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:03:09 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 10:47:42 AM
How does stripping wins harm players?
That is an entirely symbolic gesture - important nonetheless in the world of college football - but entirely symbolic.
I think you just answered your own question.
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
Since there is no purpose beyond symbolism and since the symbolism is largely a giant FU to lots of people who were innocent, what is the point?
This is all in addition to the fact that the whole notion of rewriting history as some kind of symbolic punishment is bizarre and Orwellian to begin with.
You might as well blame the judge for my kid not having a place to live when he throws me in jail for killing someone. It is not the judges fault, it is the perpetrators fault.
:ph34r:
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:15:08 AM
There are lots of rumours that Rodriguez is going after several PSU players pretty hard...
I think almost everyone is, though none of them will admit it of course.
The big to-do out here on the west coast is that USC, who is on probation and had scholarship reductions, is going after some PSU players. A lot of Pac -12 fans are very upset about that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YASWRhCXWKYY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YASWRhCXWKYY)
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 12:28:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2012, 12:05:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
The reason the NCAA had to cite other reasons is because there is nothing in the NCAA rules dealing with this because the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Nah, those are still in the hands of the court system.
Exactly the point. The NCAA has penalized conduct which is before the courts and over which the NCAA has no jurisdiction at all.
:huh:
Just because the criminal process is involved doesn't mean anyone and everyone can't also be involved.
If an employee commits a theft you don't have to wait for the criminal process to take place before firing them.
:huh:
If an employee commits theft it is a breach of a term of the employment contract. Please show me what rule the NCAA is enforcing related to the crimes of Sandusky and potentially others. I suspect you will not be able to find one since the NCAA itself was not able to cite one when they pronounced the punishment.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.
In what way have they "take(n) over criminal or civil jurisdiction"?
There are still criminal charges pending against Spanier, Schulz and Curley and there will be many civil suits against the University.
The NCAA added their own punishments on top of whatever the legal system does.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
No good. Kicking PSU out of the NCAA would harm all the innocents you mentioned above, and wouldn't punish the individuals.
Only if PSU doesn't comply. And if they don't comply then it's an issue between the Trustees and the stakeholders as to why not.
QuoteAn amusing notion, but just a notion you have. I know of no one else who thinks vacating wins is "saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity"
It is symbolic - it means that everything the program's leadership accomplished while covering up the scandal is vacated
What leadership? And accomplishments of theire are being vacated?
Personally, I don't think this action means anything at all, but if anything is being "vacated" it is achievements that were "accomplished" more by the actual athletes than by some unidentified "program leadership."
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.
Yes, I am sure there is some legal concept that will make your claim that the NCAA is "taking over criminal or civil jurisdiction" make some sense.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.
Yes, I am sure there is some legal concept that will make your claim that the NCAA is "taking over criminal or civil jurisdiction" make some sense.
Hopefully it will be a Canadian concept.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.
In what way have they "take(n) over criminal or civil jurisdiction"?
There are still criminal charges pending against Spanier, Schulz and Curley and there will be many civil suits against the University.
The NCAA added their own punishments on top of whatever the legal system does.
I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.
Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that the punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent and so to express their outrage have instituted this pentalty.
In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 11:49:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.
Yes, I am sure there is some legal concept that will make your claim that the NCAA is "taking over criminal or civil jurisdiction" make some sense.
Hopefully it will be a Canadian concept.
As PLJ stated it is the argument he would have used if he had been counsel for PSU.
So I am assuming the law in Canada and the law in the US related to these concepts is similar. I appreciate that the finer points might be going over the heads of the non legally trained. For that I apologize.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.
In what way have they "take(n) over criminal or civil jurisdiction"?
There are still criminal charges pending against Spanier, Schulz and Curley and there will be many civil suits against the University.
The NCAA added their own punishments on top of whatever the legal system does.
I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.
Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.
In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
How did any of that "take over" criminal jurisdiction?
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.
Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.
You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.
In what way have they "take(n) over criminal or civil jurisdiction"?
There are still criminal charges pending against Spanier, Schulz and Curley and there will be many civil suits against the University.
The NCAA added their own punishments on top of whatever the legal system does.
I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.
Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.
In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
How did any of that "take over" criminal jurisdiction?
Refer to my post above.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2012, 09:23:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2012, 09:19:37 AM
What we have left is deterrence aimed at the "culture" of football itself, within the institution. That to me is problematic. It is true that "culture" can influence actions, but it seems bad policy to aim punsihments at "culture", rather than at individuals - even when one can do both.
Not that I care one whit about college football, let alone this specific university.
Why? The US has often tried to change the cultures of it's enemies or of certain subcultures within it's own society. Sometimes with success, sometimes without it. Why shouldn't the NCAA be able to do the same?
Because when you aim a punishment at an amorphous concept like "culture" generally, you hit all sorts of innocent parties?
To my mind, that's a bad idea. It has the look and smell of an action undertaken purely to express moral outrage, rather than to achieve any concrete, positive result. Expressing moral outrage is fine of course, but expressing moral outrage in a way that harms innocent parties is generally a bad idea, right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.
Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.
In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.
Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.
In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.
At least a penalty that fits much better within the confines of the jurisdiction of the NCAA and so from that point of view less draconian.
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2012, 11:59:47 AM
Expressing moral outrage is fine of course, but expressing moral outrage in a way that harms innocent parties is generally a bad idea, right?
In this case, the "harm" is that a school sports team is going to not be very good for a few years.
People are freaking out because they buy into the culture that led to rioting when the school fired the football coach while firing the school president was a footnote. Who cares.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 12:04:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.
Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.
In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.
At least a penalty that fits much better within the confines of the jurisdiction of the NCAA and so from that point of view less draconian.
Glad to see we aren't letting the process eclipse the result.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:03:09 AM
The entire "It harms the innocent!" argument has no real weight with me - all punitive measures harm the innocent. The point to them is that absent those punitive measures, allowing whoever you are punishing to do whatever it is they are doing (and those who will do similar things in the future without this kind of control) MORE innocent people will be harmed.
The issue should be looked at rationally as a cost/benefit execise. It is true all punitive measures harm the innocent to some degree, but that degree varies - as does the benefit in terms of deterrence from the measures.
Here the measures taken very clearly harm the innocent, but I cannot come up with any real benefit in terms of deterrence. Deterrence implies that those to be deterred have the power to change their ways, and with sufficient incentive (the deterrence) would do so.
The question I've asked is: in what way do the Board of governors of the university have the power to prevent senior administrators from covering up serious crimes to benefit a buddy of theirs? What, exactly, could they do to prevent future presidents from looking away?
If these measures would actually prevent future cover-ups, I'd be inclined to agree - football records and a few million dollars are small prices to pay to prevent rapes. What is missing is the logical connection between "imposing these penalties" and "preventing rapes in the future".
Hence, the conclusion that this looks like moral chest-beating which will harm the innocent but have little other effect.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 12:08:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 12:04:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.
Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.
In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.
At least a penalty that fits much better within the confines of the jurisdiction of the NCAA and so from that point of view less draconian.
Glad to see we aren't letting the process eclipse the result.
Your meaning is rather obscure.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 12:05:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2012, 11:59:47 AM
Expressing moral outrage is fine of course, but expressing moral outrage in a way that harms innocent parties is generally a bad idea, right?
In this case, the "harm" is that a school sports team is going to not be very good for a few years.
People are freaking out because they buy into the culture that led to rioting when the school fired the football coach while firing the school president was a footnote. Who cares.
I already said I care not a jot for college football. Personally, I think US universities are football-crazy and they would all be better off without it ... but that's totally besides the point.
A foolish decision is a foolish decision even if you don't care about the traget.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 11:46:58 AM
Only if PSU doesn't comply. And if they don't comply then it's an issue between the Trustees and the stakeholders as to why not.
Stricken as non-responsive. Inocents would suffer, which is what you have against the NCAA's existing sanctions to begin with. If sanctions against "the program" are to be avoided, then you can't logically propose to avoid them by threatening to impose them. The threat has no weight if not carried out, and, if carried out, imposes the very evil that you oppose.
QuoteWhat leadership? And accomplishments of theire are being vacated?
Personally, I don't think this action means anything at all, but if anything is being "vacated" it is achievements that were "accomplished" more by the actual athletes than by some unidentified "program leadership."
No athlete establishes a winning program nor claims to be conducting a "grand experiment." Players block, tackle, run, kick, etc. No throws, tackles, interceptions, etc are vacated.
The "leadership" is the collective of "the leaders:" coaches, athletic directors, school presidents, and the like. They, not the students, were the ones claiming those 113 wins and their "grand experiment." These are the people who failed, and it is their legacy which is being symbolically vacated. The symbolism seems apt, to me, though I personally wouldn't have argued for it if I was on the NCAA sanctions committee, simply because it is silly to try to re-write the past in such a fashion.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 11:19:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:15:08 AM
There are lots of rumours that Rodriguez is going after several PSU players pretty hard...
I think almost everyone is, though none of them will admit it of course.
The big to-do out here on the west coast is that USC, who is on probation and had scholarship reductions, is going after some PSU players. A lot of Pac -12 fans are very upset about that.
Probation ended, silly Duck fan.
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2012, 12:14:36 PM
I already said I care not a jot for college football. Personally, I think US universities are football-crazy and they would all be better off without it ... but that's totally besides the point.
A foolish decision is a foolish decision even if you don't care about the traget.
Fair enough, but in this case the NCAA said that college football needs to be knocked down a few pegs and shouldn't overshadow the university. The sanctions were designed to knock Penn State football down a few pegs, and the "harm" seems to be mostly to those invested in keeping its stature where it is.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:03:09 AM
. You might as well blame the judge for my kid not having a place to live when he throws me in jail for killing someone. It is not the judges fault, it is the perpetrators fault.
I don't think it is quite the same thing.
The judge puts you in jail to protect the public from killers like you, and to punish you for an act that you deliberately committed.
The NCAA fine or ex post disapperance of wins and losses doesn't protect anyone and doesn't punish any of the intentional actors.
The usc scholarship penalties are still in effect.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:03:09 AM
. You might as well blame the judge for my kid not having a place to live when he throws me in jail for killing someone. It is not the judges fault, it is the perpetrators fault.
I don't think it is quite the same thing.
The judge puts you in jail to protect the public from killers like you, and to punish you for an act that you deliberately committed.
The NCAA fine or ex post disapperance of wins and losses doesn't protect anyone and doesn't punish any of the intentional actors.
I disagree, it protects the NCAA member institutions from others allowing their football programs to eclipse basic integrity, and punishes PSU and the people who run their university and athletic program for their failure to exercise a reasonable level of institutional control over the athletic department and the football program.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 11:46:58 AM
Only if PSU doesn't comply. And if they don't comply then it's an issue between the Trustees and the stakeholders as to why not.
Stricken as non-responsive. Inocents would suffer, which is what you have against the NCAA's existing sanctions to begin with. If sanctions against "the program" are to be avoided, then you can't logically propose to avoid them by threatening to impose them. The threat has no weight if not carried out, and, if carried out, imposes the very evil that you oppose.
:huh:
If the NCAA makes the threat, it is then the decision of PSU's governing body to decide what to do.
If it does the right thing and complies, then no innocents suffer and the onus falls entirely on those responsible. That is the only way I can think of to achieve that outcome, although I welcome other suggestions.
If the PSU governing body elects not to comply and accept the resulting sanction, that the harm caused to others results from that decision. But there is an easy remedy for the harmed stakeholders - they can remove the PSU governors and replace them.
QuoteNo athlete establishes a winning program nor claims to be conducting a "grand experiment." Players block, tackle, run, kick, etc. No throws, tackles, interceptions, etc are vacated.
Football games are won and lost on the field by the atheletes who play the games, and by no one and nothing else. "Programs" don't win football games. The ony program that I can think of of relevance is a booklet that is sold at some games that contains information about the players, coaches, schedule etc. and that booklet certainly ins't involved in winning or losing games.
QuoteThe "leadership" is the collective of "the leaders:" coaches, athletic directors, school presidents, and the like. They, not the students, were the ones claiming those 113 wins and their "grand experiment." These are the people who failed, and it is their legacy which is being symbolically vacated. The symbolism seems apt, to me, though I personally wouldn't have argued for it if I was on the NCAA sanctions committee, simply because it is silly to try to re-write the past in such a fashion.
I am not aware of any amorphous leadership collective claiming anything, nor would I know what such a claim would look like or how a collective would make it.
Let's make this concrete. Robert Pangborn is a professor of engineering mechanics who also serves as Acting Executive Vice President of PSU. Is he claiming 113 wins? Or some subset? How about his predecessor, whoever the that person may be? Is is your understanding that a purpose of the NCAA sanction is to stop Dr. Pangborn, from claiming 113 wins in order to symbolicly vacate his legacy.
Perhaps I am just being dense, but I don't get it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 11:00:20 AM
I've read the applicable rules here and don't entirely agree with the view that the rules clearly permit the sanctions that issues in this case. It is at the very least a big stretch to claim that the "ethics" rules were intended to capture this specific kind of conduct, and it looks to me like 10.4 says that consequence of violation is disciplinary action against the offending "Institutional staff members" not the whole institution.
I don't think 10.4 is limiting, but showing that they'll punish regardless as to if the staff members have moved on. 2.1 seems to show that the institution is ultimately on the hook for everything.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:03:09 AM
. You might as well blame the judge for my kid not having a place to live when he throws me in jail for killing someone. It is not the judges fault, it is the perpetrators fault.
I don't think it is quite the same thing.
The judge puts you in jail to protect the public from killers like you, and to punish you for an act that you deliberately committed.
The NCAA fine or ex post disapperance of wins and losses doesn't protect anyone and doesn't punish any of the intentional actors.
I disagree, it protects the NCAA member institutions from others allowing their football programs to eclipse basic integrity, and punishes PSU and the people who run their university and athletic program for their failure to exercise a reasonable level of institutional control over the athletic department and the football program.
The people who screwed up, for the most part, are no longer the same ones who are still there. Paterno is dead, and the rest of them have mostly been fired (or otherwise forced out). Some of them are definately going to face criminal charges and end up going to prison. They, and the school, are going to get their pants sued off. Those are the appropriate penalties in this situation. Laws were broken, not NCAA regulations.
The NCAA is a private organization that is, in this case, attempting to usurp the functions of the legal system. In a sense, this is almost the same thing that PSU officials did with Sandusky--try to handle the problem internally, instead of letting the courts do their job.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 12:50:07 PM
:huh:
If the NCAA makes the threat, it is then the decision of PSU's governing body to decide what to do.
If it does the right thing and complies, then no innocents suffer and the onus falls entirely on those responsible. That is the only way I can think of to achieve that outcome, although I welcome other suggestions.
That's exactly the situation that existed before the Sandusky incident came to light! :lol:
The NCAA siad that member institutions and their leaders will behave honestly:
Quote10.01.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution
to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with
honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as
individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated
with wholesome competitive sports.
Penn State officials and coaches willfully acted dishonestly. I agree that it was up to them to comply or not. Your primary way failed, and the hammer came down as the secondary way to get people to pay attention to the rules, just as you recommended.
QuoteIf the PSU governing body elects not to comply and accept the resulting sanction, that the harm caused to others results from that decision. But there is an easy remedy for the harmed stakeholders - they can remove the PSU governors and replace them.
Indeed. And we can see what happens when the PSU governing body elects not to comply, and then accepts the resulting sanctions: innocents pay a price, and people say that the sanctions are thus unfair. The onus was on PSU all along, and they fucked it up.
QuoteFootball games are won and lost on the field by the atheletes who play the games, and by no one and nothing else. "Programs" don't win football games. The ony program that I can think of of relevance is a booklet that is sold at some games that contains information about the players, coaches, schedule etc. and that booklet certainly ins't involved in winning or losing games.
Football games are won and lost o the field by
teams of football players, not by individuals. "Individuals" don't win games or accumulate wins, "programs" do. The only individual athletes I know of who win events are those engaged in individual sports, and they certainly aren't involved in winning football games.
QuoteI am not aware of any amorphous leadership collective claiming anything, nor would I know what such a claim would look like or how a collective would make it.
Okay, but I am not sure what your awareness has to do with anything.
QuoteLet's make this concrete. Robert Pangborn is a professor of engineering mechanics who also serves as Acting Executive Vice President of PSU. Is he claiming 113 wins? Or some subset? How about his predecessor, whoever the that person may be? Is is your understanding that a purpose of the NCAA sanction is to stop Dr. Pangborn, from claiming 113 wins in order to symbolicly vacate his legacy.
Yours is a question for Dr. Pangborn. I have no idea what he claims.
My understanding of the purpose of the NCAA vacating 112 games (I got the number wrong above, since Bradley didn't win two games, just one) is to make it impossible for anyone to take credit for any PSU wins from 1998-2011. No coaches can recruit boasting of two Big Ten championships invite players to be part of the team that wins the school's 750th game, for instance.
QuotePerhaps I am just being dense, but I don't get it.
Perhaps, but I think the denseness is intentional.
But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job. That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 01:14:08 PM
The people who screwed up, for the most part, are no longer the same ones who are still there.
I disagree. The ones who deliberately broke the law are gone, but those who fostered the culture that had janitors scared to report violations of the law because they knew that Paterno was tolerating those violations aren't gone. Those people screwed up as well. The students who rioted when Paterno was fired aren't all gone. They screwed up as well. The boosters and alums who pressured PSU officials to rescind the firing and re-instate Joe Paterno aren't gone, and they share part of the blame, too. They, and their counterparts at other universities, are the targets of the NCAA snactions. The law gets to handle the ones that broke the law, as opposed to the NCAA bylaws.
QuoteThe NCAA is a private organization that is, in this case, attempting to usurp the functions of the legal system. In a sense, this is almost the same thing that PSU officials did with Sandusky--try to handle the problem internally, instead of letting the courts do their job.
I have seen this claim made any number of times in this thread and others, and always it is presented as nakedly as it is here. Maybe you have thought it through more than the other people I have seen saying this and never backing it up. What functions of the legal system is the NCAA "attempting to usurp?" How does sanctioning an NCAA member program equate to engaging in a criminal conspiracy?
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job. That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".
I don't have a problem with CC saying what he said, because he frequently says silly things, and you know you will never get anything but a weasel response if you challenge him.
Maybe some of the others making this kind of claim will have intellectually honest responses. I guess I could be convinced, if the arguments were more than naked assertions.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 01:14:08 PM
The people who screwed up, for the most part, are no longer the same ones who are still there.
That is almost always the case when it comes to NCAA sanctions.
If the NCAA took this attitude, that they should only punish when the people who are directly responsible are still there, the NCAA would have zero teeth.
Any school could engage in whatever activity they like, knowing that by the time it came to light, chances are good the perpetrators will have moved on - and if not, lord knows that the investigation takes long enough that you can make sure they have moved on by the time it finishes in any case.
The thing the institution is being punished for is not raping kids - it is creating an environment where such a thing (and its cover up) is possible. The NCAA does not simply demand that the school be able to claim indifference or no active part - the demand is that the schools actively foster, create, and maintain an environment where such things cannot happen.
The rules are very specifically setup so that "plausible deniability" cannot be a defense.
Now, perhaps you just don't like the NCAA and their rules, and that is fine. But that is an issue separate from PSU.
Quote
Paterno is dead, and the rest of them have mostly been fired (or otherwise forced out). Some of them are definately going to face criminal charges and end up going to prison. They, and the school, are going to get their pants sued off. Those are the appropriate penalties in this situation. Laws were broken, not NCAA regulations.
Laws AND NCAA regulations were broken.
Quote
The NCAA is a private organization that is, in this case, attempting to usurp the functions of the legal system.
That is just silly. They are not sending anyone to jail. They are not charging anyone with a crime, they are imposing penalties for violating the terms of the agreement that not only did Penn State sign when they joined the NCAA, they are terms that Penn State had a large hand in creating to begin with.
You can argue that the penalties don't fit the infraction, but arguing that Penn State is usurping the functions of the legal system is just crazy talk. Are you really suggesting that because the crime in question is a criminal matter, the NCAA cannot act at all?
What if a coach robbed a bank in order to pay a player to come to their school? Since that is a crime, does the NCAA have no ability to have a say in that matter?
Whereas that same coach using his own money to pay a player to come to their school (not a crime), the NCAA can respond to that?
Quote
In a sense, this is almost the same thing that PSU officials did with Sandusky--try to handle the problem internally, instead of letting the courts do their job.
Uhhh, no. Not the same in any way. PSU covered up Sandusky's crime in order to protect their schools reputation and the person and myth of Joe Paterno. That is a direct and clear violation of the NCAA rules.
The NCAA is not motivated by any such thing. The courts will do their job dealing with the *individuals* who have committed crimes, and the NCAA will do its job dealing with the *institution* that violated the rules they agreed to upon joining the NCAA.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 01:43:06 PM
The NCAA is not motivated by any such thing. The courts will do their job dealing with the *individuals* who have committed crimes, and the NCAA will do its job dealing with the *institution* that violated the rules they agreed to upon joining the NCAA.
Indeed. Had PSU turned in Sandusky when JoPa, Curley, et al got the McQueary report, the NCAA would have taken no action at all. JoPa and Curley would likely have lost their jobs because they didn't do anything in 1998 except to move Sandusky out of the official program, but the school would have done that, and the NCAA would have applauded.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job. That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".
No one, especially me, said the NCAA ruling was stopping the courts from doing anything. You, and I suspect Berkut, simply didnt understand the legal argument about jurisdiction. As a point of clarification this is what I did say in response to your question of what I did mean. You might have missed it.
QuoteIn short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
That is what ursurping juridiction means. Making decisions outside ones jurisdiction...
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:02:18 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job. That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".
No one, especially me, said the NCAA ruling was stopping the courts form doing anything. You, and I suspect Berkut, simply didnt understand the legal argument about jurisdiction. As a point of clarification this is what I did say in response to your question of what I did mean. You might have missed it.
QuoteIn short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
It's debatable whether they were outside of their jurisdiction when you consider the ethics and honesty clauses in the NCAA rules. Granted, they have never been enforced before but they are still there.
I guess we just disagree on the meaning of "take over". I think of it as, you know, taking over something from someone else; meaning the NCAA has it and the courts no longer do. I suppose there may be another definition that works with what you are trying to say.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:02:18 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job. That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".
No one, especially me, said the NCAA ruling was stopping the courts form doing anything. You, and I suspect Berkut, simply didnt understand the legal argument about jurisdiction. As a point of clarification this is what I did say in response to your question of what I did mean. You might have missed it.
QuoteIn short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
It's debatable whether they were outside of their jurisdiction when you consider the ethics and honesty clauses in the NCAA rules. Granted, they have never been enforced before but they are still there.
I guess we just disagree on the meaning of "take over". I think of it as, you know, taking over something from someone else; meaning the NCAA has it and the courts no longer do. I suppose there may be another definition that works with what you are trying to say.
I agree that is where one of the debates exists. However, if one concludes that the NCAA did not have jurisidiction then the only correct conclusion in law is that the NCAA ursurped the jurisdiction of other bodies that do have such jursidiction.
If you dont like "take over" the insert ursurp instead.
Rich Rodrigues stated he was talking to some PSU players.
When asked what kind of players he might be looking for, he said "anybody fast who can play defense."
Oh man, this is going to be an interesting year.
And by interesting, I mean painful and ugly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:10:42 PM
If you dont like "take over" the insert ursurp instead.
:lol: There's a distinction without a difference!
If you usurp someone's jurisdiction, you are taking over jurisdiction.
Luckily for you, neither usurpation nor "take over" applies in this case. The NCAA is within its jurisdiction, as even Penn State agrees.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 02:12:23 PM
Rich Rodrigues stated he was talking to some PSU players.
When asked what kind of players he might be looking for, he said "anybody fast who can play defense."
Oh man, this is going to be an interesting year.
And by interesting, I mean painful and ugly.
Michigan already got PSU's fast cornerback recruit. RR might get some of their current players, though; Michigan has already said they are not interested in those (though UM sure could use a couple DTs or another elitish running back).
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:10:42 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:02:18 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job. That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".
No one, especially me, said the NCAA ruling was stopping the courts form doing anything. You, and I suspect Berkut, simply didnt understand the legal argument about jurisdiction. As a point of clarification this is what I did say in response to your question of what I did mean. You might have missed it.
QuoteIn short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.
It's debatable whether they were outside of their jurisdiction when you consider the ethics and honesty clauses in the NCAA rules. Granted, they have never been enforced before but they are still there.
I guess we just disagree on the meaning of "take over". I think of it as, you know, taking over something from someone else; meaning the NCAA has it and the courts no longer do. I suppose there may be another definition that works with what you are trying to say.
I agree that is where one of the debates exists. However, if one concludes that the NCAA did not have jurisidiction then the only correct conclusion in law is that the NCAA ursurped the jurisdiction of other bodies that do have such jursidiction.
If you dont like "take over" the insert ursurp instead.
Where did you come to the conclusion that the NCAA did not have jurisdiction?
Would any of these change your mind?
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/20120723/21207235
QuoteNCAA Constitution References
2.1 Scope of Responsibility.
The institution's responsibility for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes responsibility for the actions of its staff members and for the actions of any other individual or organization engaged in activities promoting the athletics interests of the institution.
2.4 The Principle of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.
For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program. It is the responsibility of each institution to:
(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational mission and goals of the institution; and
(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the policies in this article.
6.01.1 Institutional Control.
The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control.
6.4 Responsibilities for Actions of Outside Entities.
6.4.1 Independent Agencies or Organizations.
An institution's "responsibility" for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of an independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration, or an athletics department staff member, has knowledge that such agency, corporate entity or other organization is promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program.
6.4.2 Representatives of Athletics Interests.
An institution's "responsibility" for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of individuals, a corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration or an athletics department staff member has knowledge or should have knowledge that such an individual, corporate entity or other organization:
(a) Has participated in or is a member of an agency or organization as described in Constitution 6.4.1;
(b) Has made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
(c) Has been requested by the athletics department staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or is assisting in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Has assisted or is assisting in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes; or
(e) Is otherwise involved in promoting the institution's athletics program.
6.4.2.1 Agreement to Provide Benefit or Privilege.
Any agreement between an institution (or any organization that promotes, assists or augments in any way the athletics interests of the member institution, including those identified per Constitution 6.4.1) and an individual who, for any consideration, is or may be entitled under the terms of the agreement to any benefit or privilege relating to the institution's athletics program, shall contain a specific clause providing that any such benefit or privilege may be withheld if the individual has engaged in conduct that is determined to be a violation of NCAA legislation. The clause shall provide for the withholding of the benefit or privilege from a party to the agreement and any other person who may be entitled to a benefit or privilege under the terms of the agreement.
6.4.2.2 Retention of Identity as "Representative."
Any individual participating in the activities set forth in Constitution 6.4.2 shall be considered a "representative of the institution's athletics interests," and once so identified as a representative, it is presumed the person retains that identity.
Division I Bylaw References
10.01.1 Honesty and sportsmanship.
Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.
10.1 Unethical Conduct.
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual's institution;
(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete;
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;
(d) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the individual's institution false or misleading information concerning an individual's involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation;
(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner");
(f) Knowing involvement in providing a banned substance or impermissible supplement to student-athletes, or knowingly providing medications to student-athletes contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care in sports medicine practice, or state and federal law. This provision shall not apply to banned substances for which the student-athlete has received a medical exception per Bylaw 31.2.3.5; however, the substance must be provided in accordance with medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care and state or federal law;
(g) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or an institution's admissions office regarding an individual's academic record (e.g., schools attended, completion of coursework, grades and test scores);
(h) Fraudulence or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement examinations;
(i) Engaging in any athletics competition under an assumed name or with intent to otherwise deceive; or
(j) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or the institution's athletics department regarding an individual's amateur status.
11.1.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship.
Individuals employed by or associated with a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports. (See Bylaw 10 for more specific ethical-conduct standards.)
11.1.2.1 Responsibility of Head Coach.
It shall be the responsibility of an institution's head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.
19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct.
Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.
Last Updated: Jul 25, 2012
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 02:29:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 02:12:23 PM
Rich Rodrigues stated he was talking to some PSU players.
When asked what kind of players he might be looking for, he said "anybody fast who can play defense."
Oh man, this is going to be an interesting year.
And by interesting, I mean painful and ugly.
Michigan already got PSU's fast cornerback recruit. RR might get some of their current players, though; Michigan has already said they are not interested in those (though UM sure could use a couple DTs or another elitish running back).
Well, they have a RS freshman LB who RR recruited when he was at Michigan, so I know he is talking to him at the least.
Getting kids to come West is tough, but at least there is a chance since RR is from out there, and hence knows most of these kids and has likely spoken to them in the past. If not RR, then Casteel or one of the other assistants.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 02:26:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:10:42 PM
If you dont like "take over" the insert ursurp instead.
:lol: There's a distinction without a difference!
If you usurp someone's jurisdiction, you are taking over jurisdiction.
Bonus marks Grumbler. Glad you agree with me they can mean the same thing. Too bad you dont understand what the words mean in this context.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.
Not exactly.
My point was more that IF the NCAA really feels that it wants to be the business of punishing supervisory or oversight personnel, then it should do that. I'm not really taking a position on whether that would really be a good idea to do.
But what I am taking a position is that the the NCAA should NOT decide that since it can't figure out a way to punish the "bad guys" appropraitely, it is just going to issue a bunch of unrelated sanctions that don't serve any logical goal other than the PR objective of demonstrating how Serious and Outraged the NCAA is.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 12:29:37 PM
The usc scholarship penalties are still in effect.
USC is still under their lowered scholarship limit. They also can't take advantage of the (proposed still?) thing where they can go over the limit this year while giving one up next year. People complaining about them taking players that they have room for are stupid.
E: Unless they've added some guys that puts them at the limit. I don't keep track of them much, but they seem to be rolling with the restrictions pretty well. Either way, if they're full they can't take more people because that scholarship waiver doesn't apply to them. If they aren't full, they have room, so what does it matter if get some guys?
E2: Here you go sbr: http://usc.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1388624
QuoteIf Redd did decide to transfer to USC, he would count towards the class of 2012. All but one 2012 signee has by cleared by the NCAA for enrollment, with wide receiver Darreus Rogers still an academic question mark. Silas could take his spot in the 2012 class, making Rogers an early enrollee candidate for the 2013 class in January.
USC has 18 spots available in the 2013 class with 16 verbal commitments already on board. Friday, Louisville (Ky.) four-star defensive end Jason Hatcher could make that 17 verbals commitments for USC in the 2013 class.
The NCAA is considering allowing teams to go over scholarship limits in 2012 if the school reduces the number of scholarships proportionally the following season. While under sanctions, USC has a total scholarship limitation of 75.
So they're technically at the limit, but one dude is kind of a maybe, so they can make a spot available for Redd if they are so inclined.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
Where did you come to the conclusion that the NCAA did not have jurisdiction?
I think we have been over this more than once.
Tell you what you show me where in the wall of text it says a member university is responsible for people in the university who commit criminal acts. Because if you think that is what it means then Universities just took on a whole bunch of liability they did not have before.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 02:31:50 PM
Well, they have a RS freshman LB who RR recruited when he was at Michigan, so I know he is talking to him at the least.
Getting kids to come West is tough, but at least there is a chance since RR is from out there, and hence knows most of these kids and has likely spoken to them in the past. If not RR, then Casteel or one of the other assistants.
I'd forgotten that Casteel went out to 'Zona. He'd sure know all those players, and know which ones he really wants.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:43:20 PM
Bonus marks Grumbler. Glad you agree with me they can mean the same thing. Too bad you dont understand what the words mean in this context.
The funny thing here is that you say this, and yet don't have a clue yourself what you are talking about.
No one has jurisdiction over the violation of NCAA rules but the NCAA. To argue that the courts have somehow secretly and successfully usurped that jurisdiction is absurd, and yet that is precisely what you must argue to claim that the NCAA is "usurping" them back.
Hey here's where that statue used to be:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnn%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F120724055022-paterno-wall-demolished-horizontal-gallery.jpg&hash=5a6d7274ff251564bc41367f517e0b49dfe6f8d1)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:46:12 PM
I think we have been over this more than once.
I don't think you have been over it even once.
QuoteTell you what you show me where in the wall of text it says a member university is responsible for people in the university who commit criminal acts. Because if you think that is what it means then Universities just took on a whole bunch of liability they did not have before.
Reading comprehension fail! :lol:
First, member insitutions are responsible for the actions of people like Curley, JoPa, and maybe the President:
QuoteThe institution's responsibility for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes responsibility for the actions of its staff members and for the actions of any other individual or organization engaged in activities promoting the athletics interests of the institution.
Jurisdiction over individuals established.
Quotestudent-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility
Jurisdiction over violations of the values of respect, honesty, and responsibility established.
QuoteThese values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program
Jurisdiction over actions not directly related to athletics participation established.
QuoteUnethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:
Elasticity clause established, so reasonable jurisdictional claim also established.
QuoteIndividuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts.
Jurisdiction over failure to act according to the rules, as well as acting contrary to the other rules, established.
Show me where the commission of crimes in association with the commission of NCAA violations precludes NCAA jurisdiction over its own rules.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
Where did you come to the conclusion that the NCAA did not have jurisdiction?
I think we have been over this more than once.
Tell you what you show me where in the wall of text it says a member university is responsible for people in the university who commit criminal acts. Because if you think that is what it means then Universities just took on a whole bunch of liability they did not have before.
But the sanctions weren't necessarily about criminal acts by people in the University.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-07-23/ncaa-imposes-sanctions-penn-st
QuoteBy perpetuating a "football first" culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules. The NCAA Division I Board of Directors and NCAA Executive Committee directed Association President Mark Emmert to examine the circumstances and determine appropriate action in consultation with these presidential bodies.
"As we evaluated the situation, the victims affected by Jerry Sandusky and the efforts by many to conceal his crimes informed our actions," said Emmert. "At our core, we are educators. Penn State leadership lost sight of that."
According to the NCAA conclusions and sanctions, the Freeh Report "presents an unprecedented failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem than the values of the institution, the values of the NCAA, the values of higher education, and most disturbingly the values of human decency."
No mention of any specific person or action in there.
This has probably been said here before, but I just found out that Sandusky's co-authored autobiography is titled "Touched". :lmfao: :yuk:
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 01:17:40 PM
That's exactly the situation that existed before the Sandusky incident came to light! :lol:
The NCAA siad that member institutions and their leaders will behave honestly: . . .
Penn State officials and coaches willfully acted dishonestly. I agree that it was up to them to comply or not. Your primary way failed, and the hammer came down as the secondary way to get people to pay attention to the rules, just as you recommended.
Except . . . the NCAA is not actually purporting to police honesty generally; nor is "honesty" the matter at issue here. The specific list of dishonest actions may be illustrative and not exhaustive, but it is still exemplary. And what it makes clear is that the honesty the NCAA is policing is dishonesty used to get around the NCAA-specific rules about eligibility, recruitment, etc. It's not some kind of general, free-form ethical inquiry. If Joe Paterno committed adultery and lied about it that would may be unethical and horribly dishonest, but not a valid subject of NCAA sanctions. The Sandusky conduct is far more extreme, but it doesn't the fact that is not the kind of conduct that the NCAA is setting itself up to police. That's for the police to police. Also, the conduct at issue here is not even about dishonesty in the first place. It's about failure to report a crime. The NCAA is trying to bang the square peg of this conduct into the round hole of its rules.
Certainly the NCAA didn't act in way I recommend. IMO - you don't get people to "pay attention to rules" by invoking a set of rules that isn't really applicable, and then applying a set of punishments that isn't logically related either to the rules, the actions targeted or the individuals responsible, as a "secondary way" of getting their attention. What I might recommend instead is simply telling the institution who you expect to be punished and how.
QuoteFootball games are won and lost o the field by teams of football players,
Right - they are won and lost by players, not by university bureaucrats and other "leaders"
QuoteMy understanding of the purpose of the NCAA vacating 112 games (I got the number wrong above, since Bradley didn't win two games, just one) is to make it impossible for anyone to take credit for any PSU wins from 1998-2011. No coaches can recruit boasting of two Big Ten championships invite players to be part of the team that wins the school's 750th game, for instance.
Of course it doesn't make it impossible - its a free country and anyone can claim credit for anything or boast about anything. Although the only coach who could have boasted about Big Ten Championships is dead anyway. And why is it a useful purpose to prevent some future coach from making some future boast to future potential students about some past event that actually happened?
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 03:10:18 PM
But the sanctions weren't necessarily about criminal acts by people in the University.
They may not have mentioned the criminal acts themselves. But you dont content that the penalty was not related to the criminal do you? In other words absent the criminal acts do you really think this penalty would have been imposed?
Why would anyone who isn't NCAA or Penn State give a fuck about what NCAA does to Penn State?
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 01:43:06 PM
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 01:14:08 PM
In a sense, this is almost the same thing that PSU officials did with Sandusky--try to handle the problem internally, instead of letting the courts do their job.
Uhhh, no. Not the same in any way. PSU covered up Sandusky's crime in order to protect their schools reputation and the person and myth of Joe Paterno. That is a direct and clear violation of the NCAA rules.
The NCAA is not motivated by any such thing. The courts will do their job dealing with the *individuals* who have committed crimes, and the NCAA will do its job dealing with the *institution* that violated the rules they agreed to upon joining the NCAA.
Both are motivated by PR concerns. Penn State officials covered up for Sandusky because they feared the PR fallout (at least, that's the only reasonable explanation I can see--it certainly wasn't so that Sandusky could keep coaching there), and the NCAA is just doing something because some people were whining that they should do something.
Quote from: The Minsky MomentExcept . . . the NCAA is not actually purporting to police honesty generally; nor is "honesty" the matter at issue here. The specific list of dishonest actions may be illustrative and not exhaustive, but it is still exemplary. And what it makes clear is that the honesty the NCAA is policing is dishonesty used to get around the NCAA-specific rules about eligibility, recruitment, etc. It's not some kind of general, free-form ethical inquiry. If Joe Paterno committed adultery and lied about it that would may be unethical and horribly dishonest, but not a valid subject of NCAA sanctions. The Sandusky conduct is far more extreme, but it doesn't the fact that is not the kind of conduct that the NCAA is setting itself up to police. That's for the police to police. Also, the conduct at issue here is not even about dishonesty in the first place. It's about failure to report a crime. The NCAA is trying to bang the square peg of this conduct into the round hole of its rules.
Bingo. Said better than I had put it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 03:37:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 03:10:18 PM
But the sanctions weren't necessarily about criminal acts by people in the University.
They may not have mentioned the criminal acts themselves. But you dont content that the penalty was not related to the criminal do you? In other words absent the criminal acts do you really think this penalty would have been imposed?
No. I also don't think without criminal acts Jerry Sandusky would be in jail.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
Except . . . the NCAA is not actually purporting to police honesty generally; nor is "honesty" the matter at issue here. The specific list of dishonest actions may be illustrative and not exhaustive, but it is still exemplary. And what it makes clear is that the honesty the NCAA is policing is dishonesty used to get around the NCAA-specific rules about eligibility, recruitment, etc. It's not some kind of general, free-form ethical inquiry. If Joe Paterno committed adultery and lied about it that would may be unethical and horribly dishonest, but not a valid subject of NCAA sanctions. The Sandusky conduct is far more extreme, but it doesn't the fact that is not the kind of conduct that the NCAA is setting itself up to police. That's for the police to police. Also, the conduct at issue here is not even about dishonesty in the first place. It's about failure to report a crime. The NCAA is trying to bang the square peg of this conduct into the round hole of its rules.
I'd certainly argue that the PSU officials behaved dishonestly. If "well, it technically wasn't dishonesty" is your argument, that's a pretty feeble reed, especially when the express purpose fo the honest behavior is to "represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports." Ignoring Dandusky's behavior is pretty much the opposite of that.
If Jope Paterno had been using his position coerce the wives and/or girlfriends of his players into committing adultery with him, that would be an NCAA issue as well as a police issue. Not all adultery would necessarily be an NCAA issue, though.
QuoteCertainly the NCAA didn't act in way I recommend. IMO - you don't get people to "pay attention to rules" by invoking a set of rules that isn't really applicable, and then applying a set of punishments that isn't logically related either to the rules, the actions targeted or the individuals responsible, as a "secondary way" of getting their attention. What I might recommend instead is simply telling the institution who you expect to be punished and how.
Again, the argument that the NCAA's rules aren't "really applicable" is just argument by assertion. The NCAA says they apply. Penn State says they apply. Coaches, lawyers, and college presidents across the country say that they apply. They may not, but the burden is on those who say that they don't to provide some evidence. Otherwise, your argument boils down to an unsupported opinion that runs contrary to what the better-informed principals say.
And the issue isn't failure to report a crime. The issue is that "by perpetuating a "football first" culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules."
QuoteRight - they are won and lost by players, not by university bureaucrats and other "leaders"
Right. They are won and lost by teams, not individual players, and those teams are organized by, directed by, financed by, and represent the program and hence the institution.
QuoteOf course it doesn't make it impossible - its a free country and anyone can claim credit for anything or boast about anything.
:rolleyes:
QuoteAlthough the only coach who could have boasted about Big Ten Championships is dead anyway.
Nope. There are still coaches there.
QuoteAnd why is it a useful purpose to prevent some future coach from making some future boast to future potential students about some past event that actually happened?
They no longer have those championships. You can't boast about something you no longer have.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 03:37:01 PM
They may not have mentioned the criminal acts themselves. But you dont content that the penalty was not related to the criminal do you? In other words absent the criminal acts do you really think this penalty would have been imposed?
Penalties are imposed on schools all the time for non-criminal acts. Michigan got put on probation for not documenting properly the amount of time the football team spent stretching!
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 03:45:48 PM
Both are motivated by PR concerns. Penn State officials covered up for Sandusky because they feared the PR fallout (at least, that's the only reasonable explanation I can see--it certainly wasn't so that Sandusky could keep coaching there), and the NCAA is just doing something because some people were whining that they should do something.
Link? This seems an absurd allegation on the face of it, but, if you have evidence, I might find it credible.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 03:57:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 03:37:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 03:10:18 PM
But the sanctions weren't necessarily about criminal acts by people in the University.
They may not have mentioned the criminal acts themselves. But you dont content that the penalty was not related to the criminal do you? In other words absent the criminal acts do you really think this penalty would have been imposed?
No. I also don't think without criminal acts Jerry Sandusky would be in jail.
I didnt think so.
Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 04:31:28 PM
And the issue isn't failure to report a crime. The issue is that "by perpetuating a “football first” culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules."
If the issue if perpetuating a football-first culture, then probably the same penalties should be levied against about 100 of the other Division 1A schools.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 05:06:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 04:31:28 PM
And the issue isn't failure to report a crime. The issue is that "by perpetuating a "football first" culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules."
If the issue if perpetuating a football-first culture, then probably the same penalties should be levied against about 100 of the other Division 1A schools.
And why stop there. Better add on all the Basetball first culture schools too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 05:06:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 04:31:28 PM
And the issue isn't failure to report a crime. The issue is that "by perpetuating a “football first” culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules."
If the issue if perpetuating a football-first culture, then probably the same penalties should be levied against about 100 of the other Division 1A schools.
And why stop there. Better add on all the Basetball first culture schools too.
Yeah, the 20 or so schools I was exempting included several, such as most of the ACC, where basketball comes first.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 04:53:45 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 03:57:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 03:37:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 03:10:18 PM
But the sanctions weren't necessarily about criminal acts by people in the University.
They may not have mentioned the criminal acts themselves. But you dont content that the penalty was not related to the criminal do you? In other words absent the criminal acts do you really think this penalty would have been imposed?
No. I also don't think without criminal acts Jerry Sandusky would be in jail.
I didnt think so.
Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.
So according to you, once a person involved with a university has committed a crime, the NCAA has no jurisdiction over
anything that could be even tangentially related? Can they do anything once the criminal and civil processes are finished?
What if it is a student that committed the crime, can the NCAA rule on that student's eligibility to compete in NCAA sanctioned events or do they lose that too?
What about pro athletes who commit crimes away from the game, should the league be able to punish them at all?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 04:53:45 PM
I didnt think so.
Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.
Again, the pretense that the NCAA only imposes sanctions for criminal acts (and that, when they do so, that they "usurp" the jurisdiction of the legal system) doesn't make you sound bright at all! :lol:
SMU got the death penalty for acts that were not criminal. The argument that PSU wouldn't get any sanctions unless they were involved in criminal acts is unsustainable, even if you get two cripples and a moron to agree with you.
Sandusky's behavior wasn't a secret known only to the perp, four men, and the victims. It was known amongst the custodial staff as well, and I'll bet a lot further. McQueary know. The Second Mile knew.
But nobody acted. Why not? Because PSU football was to big to take on. That's what the NCAA targeted, and that's what they got. The fact that it was a criminal act and not something else is beside the point.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 05:06:23 PM
If the issue if perpetuating a football-first culture, then probably the same penalties should be levied against about 100 of the other Division 1A schools.
Ah, the ol' "everybody does it" defense. That's never been very convincing.
The problem does exist elsewhere, of course, or the NCAA wouldn't have needed to act. But I am willing to bet that every big-time university president has already sat down with their legal counsels and athletic directors and said "how do we make sure this can't happen here?" That's one of the points of punishment: it deters other would-be transgressors.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 04:31:28 PM
I'd certainly argue that the PSU officials behaved dishonestly. If "well, it technically wasn't dishonesty" is your argument, that's a pretty feeble reed, especially when the express purpose fo the honest behavior is to "represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports." Ignoring Dandusky's behavior is pretty much the opposite of that.
One can argue any number of things, but if one reads the section of the NCAA rules relating to unethical conduct it is pretty clear that the kinds of conduct that they are targeted have nothing to do with what PSU did here. The selection you quoted demonstrates that - the prupose of the rules are to promote "fair play" and "standards" relating to "competitive sports" - i.e. the relate to sporting mission of this Athletic Association and are not intended to impose general and unlimited standards of honesty and ethical behavior in all aspects of life.
QuoteAgain, the argument that the NCAA's rules aren't "really applicable" is just argument by assertion. The NCAA says they apply. Penn State says they apply. Coaches, lawyers, and college presidents across the country say that they apply. They may not, but the burden is on those who say that they don't to provide some evidence. Otherwise, your argument boils down to an unsupported opinion that runs contrary to what the better-informed principals say.
The NCAA is the very institution whose interpretation is being question, so it is circular to appeal to their authority. Penn State signed a consent decree which is different from admitting the rules are really applicable - it is rather an agreement that they will not challenge it. Without citation to the "coaches, lawyers and college presidents" who say they apply, or elucidiation of their reasons, or explication of what exactly makes them "better informed," there is no way to evaluate the validity of this appeal to authority.
As for my argument, it is hardly unsupported. I have set forth a number of reasons - whether anyone finds them persuasive is another story.
QuoteAnd the issue isn't failure to report a crime. The issue is that "by perpetuating a "football first" culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules."
Serial abuse occurred because and only because:
1) Sandusky was a rapist.
2) No one turned him in.
PSU "culture" didn't cause #1
That leaves 2.
So why wasn't he turned in? The answer is that specifically identifiable human beings who had knowledge and could have turned him in made the decision not to. That is a failure not of a "football first culture" (whatever the heck that is) or because some amorphous and unnamed "leadership" "failed . . . to value institutional integrity," but of specific individuals who when presented with a choice of how to respond, made the wrong choice. These were educated adults, with agency. They didn't act the way they did because they were helplessly entrapped in a dysfunctional institutional culture, but because they made a conscious decision to do the wrong thing.
The problem with blaming the "culture" and "value" of some abstract collective for individual moral failings is not just that it confuses the issues under a mass of meaningless verbiage. And its not just because it involves the gross hypocrisy of the NCAA decrying a "football first culture" that the association and its memebers have done so much to facilitate over the years. It is that it is counterproductive because it attenuates the real personal responsibility of the individuals in question by attributing that responsibility at least in part, to some conceptual construct. The problem is redefined from (e.g.) Gary Schultz deciding to cover his ass and the institution's ass by deliberately failing to report criminal activity to "leadership" in general failing to value integrity and promoting the wrong culture.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 04:53:45 PM
I didnt think so.
Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.
Again, the pretense that the NCAA only imposes sanctions for criminal acts (and that, when they do so, that they "usurp" the jurisdiction of the legal system) doesn't make you sound bright at all! :lol:
Not to speak for CC, but my position is quite the opposite--the NCAA should impose penalties for violations of NCAA rules, and the courts should impose penalties for violations of criminal laws. I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that anyone at Penn State violated any NCAA rules in relation to the Sandusky case.
There certainly could be situations in which NCAA rules and state/federal laws are violated, in which case it would be appropriate for the NCAA to levy penalties in addition to those handed down by the courts. This does not appear to be one of them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2012, 05:39:57 PM
One can argue any number of things, but if one reads the section of the NCAA rules relating to unethical conduct it is pretty clear that the kinds of conduct that they are targeted have nothing to do with what PSU did here. The selection you quoted demonstrates that - the prupose of the rules are to promote "fair play" and "standards" relating to "competitive sports" - i.e. the relate to sporting mission of this Athletic Association and are not intended to impose general and unlimited standards of honesty and ethical behavior in all aspects of life.
N ice rewording, but it won't fly; the standards are those "associated with wholesome competitive sports," not those merely "relating" to sports. What is "pretty clear" to you isn't at all clear to others directly in the business. I'll take their word for it, since your argument seems to be mere assertion.
QuoteThe NCAA is the very institution whose interpretation is being question, so it is circular to appeal to their authority.
Not really, since the NCAA is an association of those to whom the authority applies. It isn't circular to note that the presidents of the universities that make up the NCAA agree that they are bound by these rules in cases like this.
QuotePenn State signed a consent decree which is different from admitting the rules are really applicable - it is rather an agreement that they will not challenge it.
Penn State agreed that "it accepts the findings of the Freeh report... and acknowledges that those facts constitute a violation of the Constitutional and Bylaw principals..." I don't know how you can twist that into an assertion that this statement is "different from admitting the rules are really applicable." :huh:
QuoteWithout citation to the "coaches, lawyers and college presidents" who say they apply, or elucidiation of their reasons, or explication of what exactly makes them "better informed," there is no way to evaluate the validity of this appeal to authority.
Under the circumstances, I don't think citations would be useful. You don't seem to know or care much about the facts of the case. If you dispute that my sytatement is true, then I can easily find some cites - but, of course, you could do the same.
QuoteAs for my argument, it is hardly unsupported. I have set forth a number of reasons - whether anyone finds them persuasive is another story.
Your assertions seem pretty naked to me.
QuoteSerial abuse occurred because and only because:
1) Sandusky was a rapist.
2) No one turned him in.
PSU "culture" didn't cause #1
That leaves 2.
So why wasn't he turned in? The answer is that specifically identifiable human beings who had knowledge and could have turned him in made the decision not to. That is a failure not of a "football first culture" (whatever the heck that is) or because some amorphous and unnamed "leadership" "failed . . . to value institutional integrity," but of specific individuals who when presented with a choice of how to respond, made the wrong choice. These were educated adults, with agency. They didn't act the way they did because they were helplessly entrapped in a dysfunctional institutional culture, but because they made a conscious decision to do the wrong thing.
I don't agree. McQueary didn't make a conscious decision to do the wrong thing, I don't think. The janitors didn't make a conscious decision to do the wrong thing, I don't think. I think in all of those cases, people with a story to tell believed that no one would take their word against that of a powerful program and its leaders, and that they would be punished for no gain.
QuoteThe problem with blaming the "culture" and "value" of some abstract collective for individual moral failings is not just that it confuses the issues under a mass of meaningless verbiage. And its not just because it involves the gross hypocrisy of the NCAA decrying a "football first culture" that the association and its memebers have done so much to facilitate over the years. It is that it is counterproductive because it attenuates the real personal responsibility of the individuals in question by attributing that responsibility at least in part, to some conceptual construct. The problem is redefined from (e.g.) Gary Schultz deciding to cover his ass and the institution's ass by deliberately failing to report criminal activity to "leadership" in general failing to value integrity and promoting the wrong culture.
The problem with ignoring the culture and blaming all of the failures at Penn State on a few "bad eggs" is that it doesn't solve the problem. The problem wasn't just Joe Paterno and his cult of personality; the problem was that people in the know censored themselves because they didn't want to take on the culture of Penn State football. The NCAA engages in a great deal of hypocrisy, of course, but that isn't an argument for them to take no action in this case. That is a mere begging of the question.
And only you seem to feel that forcing Penn State to face its own cultural defects somehow attenuates personal responsibility. I have seen no one else argue that Curley or Scultz should receive any leniency based on the fact that Penn State suffered sanctions from the NCAA.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 06:20:39 PM
Not to speak for CC, but my position is quite the opposite--the NCAA should impose penalties for violations of NCAA rules, and the courts should impose penalties for violations of criminal laws. I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that anyone at Penn State violated any NCAA rules in relation to the Sandusky case.
Penn State, the NCAA, and many others directly involved disagree with your lack of conviction, and your lack of conviction doesn't seem to me to be based on anything. What would it take to convince you, if Penn State's own assertion doesn't?
Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Why would anyone who isn't NCAA or Penn State give a fuck about what NCAA does to Penn State?
It challenges the hegemony.
After reading here and around other parts of the internet it does seem pretty clear that Penn State may not have actually violated any of the NCAA's written laws, rules or by-laws. It would be nice if the NCAA's own page that says 'Click here to see the rules Penn Sate violated' actually worked as a link to somewhere.
That said I still am glad that the NCAA did what they did. The game needs a kick in the ass and some straightening up.
The people who don't like what the NCAA did seem to fall into 2 groups (and they have a close to 100% overlap :hmm:)
1: Lawyers. Not that this is a surprise. These money grubbing motherfuckers would try and throw a wrench into any agreement, no matter how or why it was made, just to create confusion and discord so both sides need to hire more of their blood sucking ilk.
2. Not fans of college football. I don't know 100% about Minsky but being an east coast jew lawyer I can't imagine he cares much about college football. Those that have been defending the NCAA the loudest here are the biggest fans of the game.
College football, no matter how great a game it is is pretty fucked up right now. It isn't about catching the handful of cheaters, it is about everyone cheating and them finding the handful of unlucky/stupid schools. Any school that is playing for BCS Bowl berths are "win first" and football above everything. As long as they get billions of dollars of revenue from the game (with the workers working almost for free) they almost have to take that approach.
Hopefully these sanctions will make some schools think twice about this and maybe start making some decisions because they are the right thing to do, not because that is what the football team wants/needs.
Sbr, did you see the letter the NCAA sent penn state? It had sections and all.
Quote from: ulmont on July 25, 2012, 08:00:03 PM
Sbr, did you see the letter the NCAA sent penn state? It had sections and all.
No. You got a link?
If not I will look around after dinner.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 07:38:58 PM
After reading here and around other parts of the internet it does seem pretty clear that Penn State may not have actually violated any of the NCAA's written laws, rules or by-laws. It would be nice if the NCAA's own page that says 'Click here to see the rules Penn Sate violated' actually worked as a link to somewhere.
That has been available for months now. Of course, it was hidden on the NCAA's own web site; who would think to look there:
http://www.ncaa.com/content/ncaa-letter-penn-state
The front page of the NCAA site has a link to all the NCAA's documents on the topic.
QuoteCollege football, no matter how great a game it is is pretty fucked up right now. It isn't about catching the handful of cheaters, it is about everyone cheating and them finding the handful of unlucky/stupid schools. Any school that is playing for BCS Bowl berths are "win first" and football above everything. As long as they get billions of dollars of revenue from the game (with the workers working almost for free) they almost have to take that approach.
I've never found the "everybody cheats" naked assertion very persuasive. Your reiteration of it is no more persuasive than anyone else's.
QuoteHopefully these sanctions will make some schools think twice about this and maybe start making some decisions because they are the right thing to do, not because that is what the football team wants/needs.
That would, indeed, be a welcome outcome. There are definitely schools out there that need to rein themselves in.
Here's the conclusion document.
http://www.ncaa.com/content/penn-state-conclusions
Quote1. A failure to value and uphold institutional integrity demonstrated by inadequate,
and in some instances non-existent, controls and oversight surrounding the
athletics program of the University, such as those controls prescribed by Articles
2.1, 6.01.1, and 6.4 of the NCAA Constitution.
2. A failure to maintain minimal standards of appropriate and responsible conduct.
The NCAA seeks to foster an environment and culture of honesty, as exemplified
by NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 11.1.1, and by Bylaw 10.1 on ethical conduct.
Indeed, NCAA Bylaw 10.1 enumerates a non-exhaustive list of examples of
inappropriate conduct. In addition, Article 2.4 of the NCAA Constitution requires
athletic programs to adhere to fundamental values of respect, faimess, civility,
honesty and responsibility.
3. A lack of adherence to fundamental notions of individual integrity. An
institution's head coach should promote an atmosphere for compliance and
monitor the activities of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved
with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach. Further, NCAA
Bylaw 19.01.2, consistent with Article 2.4 of the NCAA Constitution, demands
the employees associated with intercollegiate athletics to serve as positive moral
models for students in order "for intercollegiate athletics to promote the character
development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to
promote civility in society."
Well there you go, looks like I'm back on the good guys' side. :hug:
Too bad they didn't get it.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty
Quote
Penn State faced 4-year death penalty
Updated: July 25, 2012, 9:25 PM ET
By Don Van Natta Jr. | ESPN.com
If Penn State had not accepted the package of NCAA sanctions announced Monday, the Nittany Lions faced a historic death penalty of four years, university president Rodney Erickson told "Outside the Lines" on Wednesday afternoon.
In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years.
Emmert told Erickson in a phone conversation on July 17 that a majority of the NCAA's leadership wanted to levy the four-year penalty because of Penn State's leaders' roles in covering up the child sexual abuse of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.
"Well, that's a pretty tough number to swallow," Erickson said he recalled thinking when told of the four-year possibility by Emmert. "It's unprecedented. It's a blow to the gut; there's no doubt about that ... I couldn't agree to that at all."
Almost immediately after that conversation, intensive discussions between Penn State and the NCAA began in earnest, Erickson said. Penn State lobbied for the NCAA to take the death penalty off the table, and the NCAA described a series of other sanctions, both "punitive and corrective" in nature.
The discussions were so secretive that most members of Penn State's embattled Board of Trustees had no idea they were happening, several trustees said.
Indeed, the trustees had thought Erickson was officially responding to a Nov. 17 letter of questions from the NCAA. In the interview on Wednesday, Erickson said the letter was set aside last week as the discussions between Penn State and the NCAA intensified.
Erickson said if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the university could have faced a multiyear death penalty, as well as "other sanctions," including a financial penalty far greater than $60 million.
"There were figures that were thrown around that were quite large," he said.
After five days of intense discussions last week, Erickson and Emmert agreed last Sunday to the historic punishment of a $60 million fine, a four-year postseason ban, significant loss of scholarships and the vacating of 14 years of 112 Penn State victories, causing Joe Paterno to fall from first to eighth on the Division I all-time coaches' win list.
The punishment was for the role played by four Penn State leaders -- Paterno, former university president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz -- to conceal Sandusky's child sexual abuse for more than 10 years, as described in the university-commissioned Freeh report.
Erickson's comments were made Wednesday afternoon, shortly before he met with Penn State's Board of Trustees about the terms of the consent decree he signed with the NCAA.
Several trustees said they are furious the board was not given a chance to vote on the agreement, which they say is bad for Penn State. But after meeting Wednesday night, the board said it understands Erickson's decision.
"The Board finds the punitive sanctions difficult and the process with the NCAA unfortunate," the board said in a statement. "But as we understand it, the alternatives were worse as confirmed by NCAA President Mark Emmert's recent statement that Penn State was likely facing a multi-year death sentence. The University and Board resolve to move forward together to recognize the historical excellence in Penn State's academic and athletic programs."
Erickson said his insistence that Penn State must avoid the death penalty was driven in large part with worry over the devastating economic impact of no Saturday afternoon football in central Pennsylvania and the words of newly hired coach Bill O'Brien.
O'Brien said in an interview Wednesday that he told Erickson, "I want to play football and I want to play football on television."
"Both of those things are possible under the sanctions," Erickson said Wednesday. "I think it is not only best for our football program but best for our entire set of sports and intercollegiate athletes to be able to continue on and have the opportunity to play in that stadium and participate."
Erickson said he disagrees with the criticism that the NCAA sanctions are worse than the death penalty.
"I think the death penalty would have been far, far worse for the program and the university over the long run," he said.
While it had been known that Penn State faced a possible multiyear death penalty, the level of NCAA support for a four-year death penalty and the import given to that threat by Erickson and other Penn State leaders were not previously known.
Erickson signed a consent decree that accepted full responsibility for the facts and conclusions of the 267-page Freeh report, a seven-month investigation by the firm of former FBI director Louis Freeh. His investigators interviewed more than 430 witnesses and reviewed more than 3.5 million documents.
The decree states the evidence against Penn State "presents an unprecedented failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem than the values of the institution, the values of the NCAA, the values of higher education and, most disturbingly, the values of human decency."
The university's discussions with the NCAA last week were so secretive that most trustee members had no idea they were going on, even as late as last Sunday when Erickson and Emmert said the consent decree's terms were finalized.
Some trustees said they hoped the dismantling of Paterno's statue would send a positive message to the NCAA when it considered sanctions. Little did those trustees know, Erickson already had agreed in principle by last Saturday on the "punitive and corrective" sanctions.
Before the Board of Trustees' meeting on Wednesday night, some members said they were considering a bid to overturn the consent decree in court because they don't believe Erickson had the authority to sign it. Erickson consulted with board chairwoman Karen Peetz, acting AD Dave Joyner and several other unnamed members of the board's executive committee, he said Wednesday.
Two trustees said most of the board's members did not find out about the terms of the agreement until Monday morning.
"This is the most significant decision in the history of Penn State, and we didn't know," one trustee said. "The financial impact of this decision could run as high as $500 million, and we didn't know anything about it.
"The Freeh report criticized us for not being in the loop on the Sandusky matter, and we were totally out of the loop on this. What happened to the transparency that we were promised?"
Another trustee said there is a growing movement among some trustees to attempt to challenge the consent decree in court.
"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said. "Think of the innocent players hurt by this. They had nothing to do with this and they have to pay the price."
On Wednesday, Erickson said he had consulted with Peetz, the board chairwoman, and the university's outside counsel, about whether he had the authority to negotiate and approve the agreement with the NCAA.
"We felt that I had the authority to engage in that consent decree," Erickson said.
You're worthless, Tim.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 05:18:19 PM
So according to you, once a person involved with a university has committed a crime, the NCAA has no jurisdiction over anything that could be even tangentially related? Can they do anything once the criminal and civil processes are finished?
sbr, unlike Grumbler, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being wilfully dense.
The NCAA has the ability to enforce its own rules. Here they are not doing that. The are creating a punishment for something that has occured outside its own rules.
It is possible that a criminal offence could also be a violation of NCAA rules. For example, if a player is paid in drugs to play for a program there would be a violation of drug laws and a violation of NCAA rules that players cannot be paid anything.
But this is not a case where there is such an overlap.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 04:53:45 PM
I didnt think so.
Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.
Again, the pretense that the NCAA only imposes sanctions for criminal acts (and that, when they do so, that they "usurp" the jurisdiction of the legal system) doesn't make you sound bright at all! :lol:
SMU got the death penalty for acts that were not criminal. The argument that PSU wouldn't get any sanctions unless they were involved in criminal acts is unsustainable, even if you get two cripples and a moron to agree with you.
Sandusky's behavior wasn't a secret known only to the perp, four men, and the victims. It was known amongst the custodial staff as well, and I'll bet a lot further. McQueary know. The Second Mile knew.
But nobody acted. Why not? Because PSU football was to big to take on. That's what the NCAA targeted, and that's what they got. The fact that it was a criminal act and not something else is beside the point.
grumbler
why do you insist on these semantics games? Is it so that you can ignore the point you know he's making and instead tilt at windmills?
smu got the death penalty because their misconduct involved cheating in recruiting such that smu fielded players that would have likely been at competing schools; the ncaa was clearly enforcing well defined rules to which all member institutions agree.
here the only connexity between sandusky and the field is that at the time of the cover up he was a FORMER assistant head coach who was ostensibly allowed on campus to run his charity. Did the Penn State cover up and the allure of the access he had to the football program enable him to continue to commit crimes? Sure it did. This is why a few members of Penn State's management are looking at jail time. Whether they committed a crime is a red herring as to whether the NCAA should be able to punish the football program for their misconduct. There is certainly nothing wrong with concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.
Had sandusky been an active chemistry professor instead of a former football coach, should the ncaa have still sanctioned the school? What if joe pa beat mrs pa in their home off campus? Whether the ncaa has by its own rules a legitimate basis to act (jurisdiction over the subject matter) in this can remains a genuine question. This is not close to smu. this is the ncaa chosing to punish a member institution for off field conduct that never affected the game. Given that civil suits will punish the Penn State economically and the state of pennsylvania will prosecute the living wrongdoers, what is the ncaa trying to accomplish? why? where is their basis to act under their own rules to which each member institution agreed? and why did they perceive a need to ignore their own procedural rules to act?
do you not agree that these are legitimate questions?
We are talking about an association that gets together for amateur athletic competitions. The leadership of one member apparently behaved in an egregious manner that brought negative publicity to the entire association. Their continued membership will bring additional negative publicity (imagine if they won the championship next year). I don't see why the rules in place before, or even if rules were in place before at all, should prohibit the other association members from setting strict standards for continued participation of the offending member to make a public stance that the collective association does not accept the conduct that took place, to possibly deter such action in the future, or simply to give the public the blood it craves.
I think the process could be important if the NCAA as an institution was acting contrary to the wishes of its membership. But all indications are that it consulted with the presidents of its members and I haven't seen evidence that members feel the sanctions are too harsh. At the end of the day, if the members decide they don't like the color blue and vote to arbitrarily kick out every school using that color, that would seem to be their perogative.
Quote"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.
Wow. Evidence the penalties weren't harsh enough.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 26, 2012, 08:29:59 AM
grumbler
why do you insist on these semantics games? Is it so that you can ignore the point you know he's making and instead tilt at windmills?
I am trying to get him to actually make a point. So far, his point
seems to be that he, unlike the university presidents that make up the NCAA board of directors and Division I advisory board, doesn't think that the NCAA has any jurisdiction over actions like those taken by PSU, and that, in fact, the NCAA is somehow "usurping" and "tak[ing] over" the job of the legal justice system. He has given no grounds for such claims.
QuoteWhether they committed a crime is a red herring as to whether the NCAA should be able to punish the football program for their misconduct. There is certainly nothing wrong with concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction.
You cannot have
my point! :lol:
QuoteNonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.
Argument by assertion. It is equally plausible to argue that the coverup allowed Paterno and Curley to keep their jobs and attract recruits who would otherwise have turned down Penn State if it came out that PSU had allowed Sandusky unhindered access to the football program facilities even after PSU officials had grounds to believe that sandusky was a pedophile.
QuoteHad sandusky been an active chemistry professor instead of a former football coach, should the ncaa have still sanctioned the school?
Had the sports programs been involved in the coverup, yes.
QuoteWhether the ncaa has by its own rules a legitimate basis to act (jurisdiction over the subject matter) in this can remains a genuine question.
Indeed it is. But the burden is on those who argue that the 36 or so university presidents who decided that the NCAA had jurisdiction were wrong.
QuoteGiven that civil suits will punish the Penn State economically and the state of pennsylvania will prosecute the living wrongdoers, what is the ncaa trying to accomplish? why? where is their basis to act under their own rules to which each member institution agreed?
Read the NCAA letter I posted above and the FAQ: http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012-07-23/faq-penn-state-sanctions
Quoteand why did they perceive a need to ignore their own procedural rules to act?
Penn State asked them to. Read the FAQ.
Quotedo you not agree that these are legitimate questions?
Some of them (indeed, most of them) have already been answered pretty authoritatively. I don't agree that challenges to the NCAA's authority have been backed with anything authritative; they are, so far as I can see, based on a misapprehension of what "the NCAA" actually is, and ignorance of the facts.
I am willing to be convinced, but so far the arguments against the NCAA's jurisdiction appear to be naked opinions and questions that have already been answered.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 26, 2012, 08:29:59 AM
Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.
Sandusky's role as a former coach was certainly not a red herring.
Whil you are correct the conduct did not affect the field of play, it was very clearly because of the fact that Sandusky was a former coach that his actions were covered up. It was because Sandusky was a former coach (and still had his office) that JoePa was being consulted on what to do. If Sandusky was a chemistry professor none of this would have gone through Curley or JoePa.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2012, 09:12:45 AM
Quote"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.
Wow. Evidence the penalties weren't harsh enough.
Yeah, I read that yesterday, and my immediate though was the same as yours: the Penn State problem arose because highly placed individuals couldn't tell the difference between the football program and the school, and here is a trustee proving, after the sanctions were put in place to crush that concept, that the offending concept is alive and well.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2012, 06:30:08 PM
N ice rewording, but it won't fly; the standards are those "associated with wholesome competitive sports," not those merely "relating" to sports. What is "pretty clear" to you isn't at all clear to others directly in the business. I'll take their word for it, since your argument seems to be mere assertion.
"associated with" and "related to" are synonyms - both imply a connection with what follows.
If the intent was to have a rule that apply generally to all ethical standards then that following language simply wouldn't have been included.
QuotePenn State agreed that "it accepts the findings of the Freeh report... and acknowledges that those facts constitute a violation of the Constitutional and Bylaw principals..." I don't know how you can twist that into an assertion that this statement is "different from admitting the rules are really applicable." :huh:
.
Penn State signed a consent decree upon threat of the death penalty. If this were real law in a real court (not the NCAA kangaroo court), a neutral arbitrator or judge would give no weight to the mere fact of Penn State's consent if the question was determining whether an action actually fell within the scope of authority.
What individual university Presidents say, even if you had anything to support that, is also irrelevant, as is what 4 of out 5 dentists have to say. Nor should the NCAA's opinion of its own authority to act be considered determinative of its actual authority - that is asking them to be the judge of their own case. Without some neutral adjudicator to answer the question, there can be no legitimate exercise, only a raw exercise of ipse dixit authority. Which is why among those thoughtful people who are not directly interested in the controversy, some have raised questions about this.
QuoteI don't agree. McQueary didn't make a conscious decision to do the wrong thing, I don't think.
Then we have a very, very big difference of opinion.
I think a decision not to report a rape of a child to the authorities, once he became aware that the people he reported to would not act, is unequivocally wrong, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks so.
QuoteThe problem with ignoring the culture and blaming all of the failures at Penn State on a few "bad eggs" is that it doesn't solve the problem. The problem wasn't just Joe Paterno and his cult of personality; the problem was that people in the know censored themselves because they didn't want to take on the culture of Penn State football.
What is the "culture of penn state football" and how can it be anything more than the resultant of the actions or deliberate failures to act of individuals?
This is just the use of abstraction to obfuscate. "People in the know" didn't censor themselves because they thought the Culture Bogeyman was going to get them. They censored themselves because specific individuals advised them to shut up and they listened.
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 09:17:03 AM
Yeah, I read that yesterday, and my immediate though was the same as yours: the Penn State problem arose because highly placed individuals couldn't tell the difference between the football program and the school, and here is a trustee proving, after the sanctions were put in place to crush that concept, that the offending concept is alive and well.
I guess the NCAA sanctions bullet missed the "Culture" ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
Then we have a very, very big difference of opinion.
I think a decision not to report a rape of a child to the authorities, once he became aware that the people he reported to would not act, is unequivocally wrong, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks so.
Indeed and this was a reaction to his role by many.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2012, 09:12:45 AM
Quote"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.
Wow. Evidence the penalties weren't harsh enough.
Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Of course the penalties failed. Because by doing nothing to change the identity of the people responsible for the lapses in supervision, it virtually guaranteed that nothing would really change. Leopards don't change their spots, even if the zookeeper erases the old feeding records.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
"associated with" and "related to" are synonyms - both imply a connection with what follows.
If the intent was to have a rule that apply generally to all ethical standards then that following language simply wouldn't have been included.
I am not going to play the semantic game - you either use their words, or you substitute your own. The latter just weakens your argument. The argument that you can ignore what the NCAA's board and advisory committee based on your own interpretation of the significance of adding words doesn't persuade, either.
QuotePenn State signed a consent decree upon threat of the death penalty. If this were real law in a real court (not the NCAA kangaroo court), a neutral arbitrator or judge would give no weight to the mere fact of Penn State's consent if the question was determining whether an action actually fell within the scope of authority.
Penn State agreed that the rules applied before there was any negotiations about the scope of the penalty. It is absolutely true that Penn State accepted the deal they got "upon threat" that they would end up with a worse deal. If this were real law in a real court, a neutral arbitrator would accept that a plea bargain or out of court settlement, even if it turned the "real court" into a "kangaroo court," might well be in the defendant's best interests.
QuoteWhat individual university Presidents say, even if you had anything to support that, is also irrelevant, as is what 4 of out 5 dentists have to say. Nor should the NCAA's opinion of its own authority to act be considered determinative of its actual authority - that is asking them to be the judge of their own case. Without some neutral adjudicator to answer the question, there can be no legitimate exercise, only a raw exercise of ipse dixit authority. Which is why among those thoughtful people who are not directly interested in the controversy, some have raised questions about this.
The university presidents
are the NCAA. Dentists are not. If the American Dental Association made a ruling on the applicability of its rules to the actions of a dentist, I would tend to defer to their judgement pending evidence to the contrary. A lawyer's opinion would carry little weight with me.
QuoteWhat is the "culture of penn state football" and how can it be anything more than the resultant of the actions or deliberate failures to act of individuals?
I am not sure I believe the assertion that cultures come from the actions or deliberate failures of individuals.
The "culture of Penn State football" seems to have been "JoPa knows best, and if he does something or fails to do something, it is because that is the right thing to do or not do." People didn't question what they perceived to be Joe Paterno's decisions. That's where the problem lay; introspection and independent thinking went by the board when it came up against "JoPa thinks...."
QuoteThis is just the use of abstraction to obfuscate. "People in the know" didn't censor themselves because they thought the Culture Bogeyman was going to get them.
Strawman argument.
QuoteThey censored themselves because specific individuals advised them to shut up and they listened.
Te evidence doesn't seem to support this. Who specifically told McQueary to shut up? Who specifically told the janitors to shut up? Who specifically told the Second Mile people to shut up?
Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 09:30:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
Then we have a very, very big difference of opinion.
I think a decision not to report a rape of a child to the authorities, once he became aware that the people he reported to would not act, is unequivocally wrong, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks so.
Indeed and this was a reaction to his role by many.
Yes, but that begs the question of him ever making a conscious decision not to do so. It was a grievous failure, to be sure, but I question the assumption that it was a conscious decision.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2012, 09:36:04 AM
Of course the penalties failed.
:lmfao:
Wow! You certainly gave them long enough before you leaped to the conclusion you had reached ahead of any evidence!
Quote from: Barrister on July 26, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 26, 2012, 08:29:59 AM
Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.
Sandusky's role as a former coach was certainly not a red herring.
Whil you are correct the conduct did not affect the field of play, it was very clearly because of the fact that Sandusky was a former coach that his actions were covered up. It was because Sandusky was a former coach (and still had his office) that JoePa was being consulted on what to do. If Sandusky was a chemistry professor none of this would have gone through Curley or JoePa.
Was it the fact he was a former coach, or was it that, because he was a former coach, he was a personal friend of the guys in the department?
If Joe P. covered up the identical crimes of his drinking buddy, the former Professor of Chemistry (to whom he had generously provided space for his charitable works), it would be just as heinous, but in that case would the sanctions be just as appropriate?
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 10:13:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 09:30:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
Then we have a very, very big difference of opinion.
I think a decision not to report a rape of a child to the authorities, once he became aware that the people he reported to would not act, is unequivocally wrong, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks so.
Indeed and this was a reaction to his role by many.
Yes, but that begs the question of him ever making a conscious decision not to do so. It was a grievous failure, to be sure, but I question the assumption that it was a conscious decision.
I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter. His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do. When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.
What kind of thought process is that? I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid? I just don't get it.
Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2012, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 26, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 26, 2012, 08:29:59 AM
Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.
Sandusky's role as a former coach was certainly not a red herring.
Whil you are correct the conduct did not affect the field of play, it was very clearly because of the fact that Sandusky was a former coach that his actions were covered up. It was because Sandusky was a former coach (and still had his office) that JoePa was being consulted on what to do. If Sandusky was a chemistry professor none of this would have gone through Curley or JoePa.
Was it the fact he was a former coach, or was it that, because he was a former coach, he was a personal friend of the guys in the department?
If Joe P. covered up the identical crimes of his drinking buddy, the former Professor of Chemistry (to whom he had generously provided space for his charitable works), it would be just as heinous, but in that case would the sanctions be just as appropriate?
It's a step removed, but potentially yes. Depends how much it ties in to the football program.
Quote from: dps on July 26, 2012, 10:34:13 AM
I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter. His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do. When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.
What kind of thought process is that? I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid? I just don't get it.
I don't see it as so mysterious. Guy sees the friend of his boss do something evil and criminal - and worries about whether he should do the right thing, or cover his ass by making it his boss's problem. Moral cowardice wins out.
Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2012, 10:40:51 AM
Quote from: dps on July 26, 2012, 10:34:13 AM
I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter. His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do. When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.
What kind of thought process is that? I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid? I just don't get it.
I don't see it as so mysterious. Guy sees the friend of his boss do something evil and criminal - and worries about whether he should do the right thing, or cover his ass by making it his boss's problem. Moral cowardice wins out.
OK, but asking you dad about it first?
Quote from: dps on July 26, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2012, 10:40:51 AM
Quote from: dps on July 26, 2012, 10:34:13 AM
I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter. His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do. When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.
What kind of thought process is that? I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid? I just don't get it.
I don't see it as so mysterious. Guy sees the friend of his boss do something evil and criminal - and worries about whether he should do the right thing, or cover his ass by making it his boss's problem. Moral cowardice wins out.
OK, but asking you dad about it first?
Advice as to
how to cover one's ass - retain job and not be subject to liability oneself. Dad's wisdom: tell the boss and make it his problem.
At least, that's my suspicion. That the guy was thinking more about his own position than about saving any kids, and his dad felt the same way.
How else to explain that he saw Sandusky rape a kid right in front of him and did nothing about it? If he was thinking of others, he'd at least have grabbed the kid, rather than let Sandusky walk out with him.
Quote from: dps on July 26, 2012, 10:34:13 AM
I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter. His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do. When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.
What kind of thought process is that? I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid? I just don't get it.
I am not sure what your point is, here. You say "I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all " and then list some conscious decisions he made on the matter.
He made bad decisions from the start, I agree. One of the first was to accept the idea that going to Paterno, rather than the police, was the right thing to do... hell, the decision to allow Sandusky to finish what he was doing was pretty fucked up.
My point is that McQueary, and others, probably didn't make conscious decisions to fail to follow up on what they reported. My point is that McQueary, and others, were so ingrained in a screwed-up culture that they didn't even seem to question the idea that leaving it all in JoPa's hands was the right thing to do. That's a result of culture, not conscious decisions to do bad things.
Quote from: dps on July 26, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
OK, but asking you dad about it first?
Again, this isn't mysterious, as Malthus points out - McQueary didn't know who was the person to go to under the circumstances. Out in the real world, you go to the police. In the world JoPa built, that's not so clear. McQueary had been living in the world JoPa built for years.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
We are talking about an association that gets together for amateur athletic competitions. The leadership of one member apparently behaved in an egregious manner that brought negative publicity to the entire association. Their continued membership will bring additional negative publicity (imagine if they won the championship next year). I don't see why the rules in place before, or even if rules were in place before at all, should prohibit the other association members from setting strict standards for continued participation of the offending member to make a public stance that the collective association does not accept the conduct that took place, to possibly deter such action in the future, or simply to give the public the blood it craves.
I think the process could be important if the NCAA as an institution was acting contrary to the wishes of its membership. But all indications are that it consulted with the presidents of its members and I haven't seen evidence that members feel the sanctions are too harsh. At the end of the day, if the members decide they don't like the color blue and vote to arbitrarily kick out every school using that color, that would seem to be their perogative.
The major problem with this analysis is that the NCAA is not merely "an association that gets together for amateur athletic competitions". If it was there is no way they would be imposing a financial penalty in the millions of dollars and there is no way one of its members would pay (or be able to pay) such a penalty.
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 12:10:25 PM
My point is that McQueary, and others, probably didn't make conscious decisions to fail to follow up on what they reported. My point is that McQueary, and others, were so ingrained in a screwed-up culture that they didn't even seem to question the idea that leaving it all in JoPa's hands was the right thing to do. That's a result of culture, not conscious decisions to do bad things.
I don't know - I mean they knew it was still happening. I'm not sure I really understand such a mindset where you'd not even think that you were washing your hands of the affair.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
I think the process could be important if the NCAA as an institution was acting contrary to the wishes of its membership. But all indications are that it consulted with the presidents of its members and I haven't seen evidence that members feel the sanctions are too harsh. At the end of the day, if the members decide they don't like the color blue and vote to arbitrarily kick out every school using that color, that would seem to be their perogative.
In essence, the NCAA can't act contrary to the interests of its members, because it
is its members. The NCAA used to run the TV contracts for college football and basketball. The university presidents decided their schools and conferences would do a better job, so they simply removed that power from the NCAA. The NCAA director came up with the idea of the NCAA basketball tournaments, and the presidents allowed the NCAA to run them because they saw the NCAA being in charge as being in the interests of the schools. The current NCAA director wanted 4-year scholarships to be possible, and wanted athletes given what he called "total cost of attendance" allowances. He got the first, but not the second.
The NCAA is administered by an executive director, but he works for the Board of Directors, which is made up of one college president from each each of the conferences.
Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 12:37:33 PM
I don't know - I mean they knew it was still happening. I'm not sure I really understand such a mindset where you'd not even think that you were washing your hands of the affair.
Ditto, but unless you are willing to believe that a bunch of different actors just all happened to make the same decision (or non-decision) for their own individual reasons, then you have to look for the common thread, and attack that, if you really want to see a change.
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 01:08:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 12:37:33 PM
I don't know - I mean they knew it was still happening. I'm not sure I really understand such a mindset where you'd not even think that you were washing your hands of the affair.
Ditto, but unless you are willing to believe that a bunch of different actors just all happened to make the same decision (or non-decision) for their own individual reasons, then you have to look for the common thread, and attack that, if you really want to see a change.
Well it is probably a mix of both, but agree that the strongest route is to attack the common thread.
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 10:11:00 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
"associated with" and "related to" are synonyms - both imply a connection with what follows.
If the intent was to have a rule that apply generally to all ethical standards then that following language simply wouldn't have been included.
I am not going to play the semantic game - you either use their words, or you substitute your own. The latter just weakens your argument. The argument that you can ignore what the NCAA's board and advisory committee based on your own interpretation of the significance of adding words doesn't persuade, either.
If you didn't want to play semantic games, you probably shouldn't have argued that "associated with" means something different from "related to".
I can't account for what you find persuasive or not. What I can tell you is that the usual way texts are interpreted for the purpose of determining whether to use coercive sanctions is that the first thing you look at is the text and the words used, and well-established canons of interpretation usually require giving meaning and purpose to all the words used.
QuotePenn State agreed that the rules applied before there was any negotiations about the scope of the penalty. It is absolutely true that Penn State accepted the deal they got "upon threat" that they would end up with a worse deal. If this were real law in a real court, a neutral arbitrator would accept that a plea bargain or out of court settlement, even if it turned the "real court" into a "kangaroo court," might well be in the defendant's best interests.
I've seen nothing that indicates the first sentence is true.
In real life, a neutral will enforce a private settlement but a private settlement has zero precedential value, not even on the settling parties should an identical situation arise in the future.
QuoteThe university presidents are the NCAA
Right - which just defaults back to NCAA being appealed to as the authority for judging the merits of their own case. Invoking the university Presidents adds nothing more, even less than the dentists in fact.
QuoteI am not sure I believe the assertion that cultures come from the actions or deliberate failures of individuals.
Assuming we are talking about "culture" as a social phenomenon of some kind, then such cultures can only arise from human beings - and from what specific real-life human beings say, do, or fail to do. Your postulation of "PSU culture" as some free-standing construct that requires sanction independent from human beings doesn't even rise to the level of an unncessary multiplicity that falls to Ockham Razor, it is just an incoherancy - To wit:
QuoteThe "culture of Penn State football" seems to have been "JoPa knows best, and if he does something or fails to do something, it is because that is the right thing to do or not do." People didn't question what they perceived to be Joe Paterno's decisions. That's where the problem lay; introspection and independent thinking went by the board when it came up against "JoPa thinks...."
. . . . Strawman
My strawman version of your argument is stronger than the actual argument. When it comes time to specify the phenemenon that supportedly justifies the NCAA extraordinary action, what is proposed is: a "'culture'" that "seems to be" (!) "'Joe Pa knows best'"
That may be enough for in your mind to justify a $60 mil fine; it doesn't cut it for me. When I read the leaked GJ testimony and other reports of the various witness, it certainly didn't seem to me that any relevant decision was being made on suppositions about what Joe Paterno thinks. Or that there was a failure of "introspection". I would be interested in knowing what particular failures you have in mind.
QuoteTe evidence doesn't seem to support this. Who specifically told McQueary to shut up?
You are correct - the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, McQueary specifically testified he was not told to shut up.
But that only makes McQueary's conduct more straightforward. There was no PSU omerta that stopped him from going forward. It was his own decision to protect his own interests. You don't need to postulate some grand cultural construct to explain that behavior. It just a individual person doing the wrong thing.
Ah multi-quote responses. My favourite thing on Languish. :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 12:10:25 PM
My point is that McQueary, and others, probably didn't make conscious decisions to fail to follow up on what they reported. My point is that McQueary, and others, were so ingrained in a screwed-up culture that they didn't even seem to question the idea that leaving it all in JoPa's hands was the right thing to do. That's a result of culture, not conscious decisions to do bad things.
This is a good example of using a abstract construct to diffuse personal responsibility.
Of course McQ and the others made conscious decisions not to follow up. They weren't zombies, they weren't in comas, they weren't Rip Van Winkles asleep for 15 years. They were quite conscious and they made wrong choices.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2012, 02:48:22 PM
If you didn't want to play semantic games, you probably shouldn't have argued that "associated with" means something different from "related to".
:rolleyes: More semantics. They are different words because they have different meanings. I associate with my friends, but I am not related to any of them.
QuoteI can't account for what you find persuasive or not. What I can tell you is that the usual way texts are interpreted for the purpose of determining whether to use coercive sanctions is that the first thing you look at is the text and the words used, and well-established canons of interpretation usually require giving meaning and purpose to all the words used.
I do this and find that the university presidents are correct. Your claim that they are wrong is unpersuasive.
QuoteI've seen nothing that indicates the first sentence is true.
I cannot account for what you have seen. It is true regardless of your lack of seeing it.
QuoteIn real life, a neutral will enforce a private settlement
Yes, and this case is a real-life case.
QuoteRight - which just defaults back to NCAA being appealed to as the authority for judging the merits of their own case. Invoking the university Presidents adds nothing more, even less than the dentists in fact.
The members and owners of a private voluntary association are the only authorities for judging the extent to which their private association has jurisdiction over its members on matters regarding the association. Neither you nor your dentist have a say in what the NCAA claims as its jurisdiction, so long as that jurisdictional claim is lawful.
QuoteAssuming we are talking about "culture" as a social phenomenon of some kind, then such cultures can only arise from human beings - and from what specific real-life human beings say, do, or fail to do. Your postulation of "PSU culture" as some free-standing construct that requires sanction independent from human beings doesn't even rise to the level of an unncessary multiplicity that falls to Ockham Razor, it is just an incoherancy
Strawman argument.
QuoteMy strawman version of your argument is stronger than the actual argument. When it comes time to specify the phenemenon that supportedly justifies the NCAA extraordinary action, what is proposed is: a "'culture'" that "seems to be" (!) "'Joe Pa knows best'"
The difference between your strawman constructs of my arguments and my actual arguments is that I am arguing a point based on some evidence, and you are recreating my argument in straw man form in order to engage in some philosophical incoherence.
QuoteThat may be enough for in your mind to justify a $60 mil fine; it doesn't cut it for me.
I also said that the $60 million fine was unjustified. I guess you couldn't fit that into your straw man version of my argument, and so decided to ignore it.
QuoteWhen I read the leaked GJ testimony and other reports of the various witness, it certainly didn't seem to me that any relevant decision was being made on suppositions about what Joe Paterno thinks. Or that there was a failure of "introspection". I would be interested in knowing what particular failures you have in mind.
The failures of McQueary, the janitors, and the Second Mile board to act based on the information they had, but which they also knew (or presumed, in the case of the janitors) Paterno knew. Plus the similar decisions by possible others (for I don't pretend that we know of every person who knew or suspected but didn't act). This seems to me to be too many similar decisions for them to all be acts of "bad people."
QuoteYou are correct - the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, McQueary specifically testified he was not told to shut up.
But that only makes McQueary's conduct more straightforward. There was no PSU omerta that stopped him from going forward. It was his own decision to protect his own interests. You don't need to postulate some grand cultural construct to explain that behavior. It just a individual person doing the wrong thing.
It was, according to you, just a whole host of individual people who just happened to make the same decision. McQueary's conduct seems to me, also, to be straightforward: he told Joe Paterno, followed Joe Paterno's instructions, and thought that, since Joe knew about it, he had no further need to act.
The explanation that McQueary remained silent in the absence of a culture of silence "to protect his own interests" flies in the face of reason. His own interests lay in revealing what he knew to the police, so that he couldn't be accused of being an after-the-fact accomplice to Sandusky's crime. He had no interests involved in remaining silent - unless there was a cultural barrier between him and telling the cops what he had already told Paterno, and which he knew Paterno hadn't passed on.
Occam's razor says my theory of a common thread between all these silent people is preferable to your theory that somehow chance made everyone involved decide to shut up.
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 04:30:23 PM
:rolleyes: More semantics. They are different words because they have different meanings. I associate with my friends, but I am not related to any of them.
Only if you stick to think "related to" must have a familial sense. Otherwise you most certain have a relation.
Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 04:32:51 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 04:30:23 PM
:rolleyes: More semantics. They are different words because they have different meanings. I associate with my friends, but I am not related to any of them.
Only if you stick to think "related to" must have a familial sense. Otherwise you most certain have a relation.
Sometimes, the same words have different meanings. grumbler is starting to go off the rails here.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2012, 03:11:02 PM
This is a good example of using a abstract construct to diffuse personal responsibility.
Only if you believe that it actually diffuses personal responsibility.
QuoteOf course McQ and the others made conscious decisions not to follow up. They weren't zombies, they weren't in comas, they weren't Rip Van Winkles asleep for 15 years. They were quite conscious and they made wrong choices.
Of course they made conscious decisions, because you say so! Excellent argument!
On what day did McQueary make this conscious decision?
Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
Ah multi-quote responses. My favourite thing on Languish. :rolleyes:
You'll live. Rub some dirt on it and get back out there kid.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsicollegefootball.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Flee-corso-p1.jpg&hash=086cc94f4b45fc5862e15d72f5805689757f247d)
And if you don't understand any of this post, that's ok.
Quote from: grumbler on July 26, 2012, 04:38:17 PM
Of course they made conscious decisions, because you say so! Excellent argument!
My conclusion is based on the following assumptions:
1) They were conscious for at least part of the time since becoming aware of Sandusky's conduct and the GJ investigation
2) They possess the faculties of reason possessed by normal human beings
3) They are capable of exercising agency.
QuoteOn what day did McQueary make this conscious decision?
The first day was approximately four or five days after he met with Curley and Schwartz in 2002. That was when Curley told them that the only action that was being taken was that Curley had informed Second Mile and that the solution was to tell Sandusky not to take any more kids around PSU or PSU facilities.
That plus every single subsequent day after that when McQueary recalled what he had saw, which according to McQueary, happened quite often, because he testified that he continued to see Sandusky at PSU facilities, and that he "personally found it troubling and not right" (and yet took no further action).
While McQueary's testimony demonstrates consciousness of his own actions, there is nothing in it that mentions "football first culture" or "what JoePa thinks" or anything that suggests he was acting unconsciously or under the some kind of compulsion.
To my mind the significant moment was when McQueary say Sandusky raping a kid and did nothing about it.
The issue is why he did that, and the rest of it - telling his boss, and doing nothing thereafter. As to that, we are all pretty well speculating.
To my mind, the most convincing explaination is that he's acting out of self-interest. After all, within the department it puts him in a great position - his boss is going to be reluctant to fire him, knowing what he knows.
If that is true, it demonstrates agency all right. Nasty, self-interested agency.
Quote from: grumblerThe explanation that McQueary remained silent in the absence of a culture of silence "to protect his own interests" flies in the face of reason. His own interests lay in revealing what he knew to the police, so that he couldn't be accused of being an after-the-fact accomplice to Sandusky's crime.
I'd be surprised if the thought of him being criminally liable for anything never crossed his mind. If that was his concern, his obvious play would have been to consult with a lawyer before talking to anyone else. AFAIK, he didn't do so. If he did consult with a lawyer, it would seem that the lawyer either failed to give him good advice, or he failed to heed it.
Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
To my mind the significant moment was when McQueary say Sandusky raping a kid and did nothing about it.
The issue is why he did that, and the rest of it - telling his boss, and doing nothing thereafter. As to that, we are all pretty well speculating.
To my mind, the most convincing explaination is that he's acting out of self-interest. After all, within the department it puts him in a great position - his boss is going to be reluctant to fire him, knowing what he knows.
If that is true, it demonstrates agency all right. Nasty, self-interested agency.
This is certainly possible, though there is no evidence that McQueary had any reason to believe that he would be safer from being fired if he kept quiet.
To me, the more convincing explanation is that he turned it over to Joe Paterno, and was okay with whatever Joe Paterno decided to do. Not because McQueary thought it gave him an advantage in employment, but because he believed that whatever JoPa decided must be the right answer; if Sandusky was still walking around campus, then it was because Joe had taken care of the problem.
Since McQueary's behavior was duplicated by others (who didn't have his potential "self-interest" reason for remaining silent; one of the people involved was a temporary employee and had no job advantage for remaining silent), I find the culture explanation more reasonable.
I never understood why people take sports so seriously.
Its just a game.
About Sanduski, death penalty. The gallows, not the axe. He was lowborn, and a bastard.
Paterno, kill his memory.
Force the maesters to erase him from the all records at the Citadel.
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2012, 10:14:27 PM
About Sanduski, death penalty. The gallows, not the axe. He was lowborn, and a bastard.
Right...unless they were girls, and then you'd be all like ZOMG USELESS WIFFOUT PICS
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2012, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2012, 10:14:27 PM
About Sanduski, death penalty. The gallows, not the axe. He was lowborn, and a bastard.
Right...unless they were girls, and then you'd be all like ZOMG USELESS WIFFOUT PICS
Naturally. For Siege, Sandusky's crime isn't kiddie-fucking. His crime is being gay.
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2012, 10:14:27 PM
I never understood why people take sports so seriously.
Its just a game.
Never figured you for a NASCAR fan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Ft%2FNASCAR-Just-Game-Indoor-Outdoor-Polyester-Flag-3X5-%2F08%2F%21BW5B%28Cw%21mk%7E%24%28KGrHgoOKjEEjlLmY6sPBKZiV6S08Q%7E%7E_35.JPG&hash=c7913309b31774f7a0cf9b1606ba69aae3ef798e)
Siege gets the Bronze Star of Languish for using Sandusky in its Polack form(Sanduski).
Looks like the rabbit hole goes deeper. I bet there are some big time donors to Penn state on that list.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57491185/feds-probe-possible-sandusky-child-porn-ring/
Quote
August 10, 2012 3:34 PM
Feds probe possible Sandusky child porn ring
Updated 5:21 PM ET
(CBS/AP) U.S. Postal inspectors are leading a federal investigation into whether former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky shared child pornography with other individuals, CBS News has learned.
Analyzing a computer seized from Sandusky, investigators are also looking into whether he sent "seductive letters" across state lines for sexual purposes. Some of these letters were said to be sent to some of his sexual abuse victims.
CBS News has learned that at the end of 2011, allegations were forward by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania that Sandusky used the mails to seduce individuals to cross state lines for sexual purposes, with trips and gifts offered. Investigators are looking at 6-7 victims who might have gotten letters.
Also in March of this year, U.S. Postal inspectors were tasked to investigate The Second Mile charity, which was founded by Sandusky. That investigation is on hold, awaiting for documents to be released by the State Attorney.
A source has been told that child pornography was found in at least one of Sandusky's computers. According to the source, there is no evidence that the pornography was of his victims. There is also no mention of a ring or sharing of boys with others. CBS News investigative producer Pat Milton reports that a second source said that none of Sandusky's victims have indicated that there was shared sex with them, Sandusky and any other individual.
The investigation is being carried out of the U.S. Postal Inspectors office in Harrisburg, Pa. and the U.S. Attorney Office of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
"I haven't heard a thing about this latest allegation," Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola, told CBS News. "Jerry continues to maintain his innocence. We think the allegation is ridiculous."
Sandusky, Penn State's defensive coordinator during the program's best years, was arrested in November on dozens of child sex abuse charges. He was convicted in June of 45 criminal counts.
Meanwhile, Penn State's board of trustees will meet this weekend to consider whether to ratify a consent decree with the NCAA that imposed penalties for how the university handled the Sandusky child molestation scandal.
Board chairwoman Karen Peetz told fellow trustees Thursday in an email, which was obtained by The Associated Press, that said there was confusion about how Penn State accepted the sanctions and whether it was the "best course" for the university.
"We have heard from President (Rodney) Erickson and from our legal team," Peetz wrote. "We have had an opportunity to speak our minds. I appreciate everyone's candor and your sincere and heartfelt comments. However, it is now time to put this matter to rest and to move on."
The resolution before the board would say that it "wishes to and hereby does ratify" the consent decree.
"We are leaders of this university," Peetz told the trustees. "We need to lead."
A notice posted on Penn State's website said the 5 p.m. Sunday telephone conference would be broadcast live online.
The NCAA on July 23 barred the school from postseason play for four years, fined it $60 million and invalidated 112 of the football team's wins for the way school officials handled abuse complaints against Sandusky.
Penn State also was stripped of future scholarships, and several high-profile players have decided to transfer to other schools since the penalties were announced. The team opens play at home Sept. 1 against Ohio University.
The NCAA concluded Penn State suffered "an unprecedented failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem" than its own values, those of the NCAA and higher education, "and most disturbingly the values of human decency."
Penn State acquiesced to the penalties, with Erickson signing the agreement. Two days later, the trustees met in secret before issuing a statement that called the sanctions difficult but the alternatives worse.
Some trustees, alumni and others have reacted angrily. The family of former football coach Joe Paterno, who died in January, and a trustee who said others supported him have sought to appeal the NCAA's decision, but the organization has said the decision is not subject to appeals.
Sandusky fucked a list of big time donors? What are you even talking about?
It's going to take some pretty extraordinary evidence to convince me that a cabal of pedophiles is secretly running Penn State.
I'm sure the FBI will oblige with your request.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/10/report-feds-investigating-sandusky-pedophile-ring-possibly-shared-boys-with-others/
Quote... "Investigators have interviewed at least one man who claims to have knowledge of Sandusky and a very prominent man, with strong ties to Penn State, both sexually abusing a boy," a source familiar with the situation told RadarOnline.com.
"The new investigation is also looking at if boys from the Second Mile charity were shared by Sandusky with other men. The name of at least one very rich and powerful man connected to the university has come up in this new investigation."
Additionally, CBS News reported U.S. Postal inspectors are leading a federal investigation into whether Sandusky shared child pornography with other individuals...
Oh, an anonymous source, pointing the finger at 'a rich and powerful man'? That's not exactly credible.
Maybe they'll also find out that Sandusky was a witch.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 02:20:03 PM
Oh, an anonymous source, pointing the finger at 'a rich and powerful man'? That's not exactly credible.
Maybe they'll also find out that Sandusky was a witch.
BURN HIM!
Quote from: Scipio on August 11, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 02:20:03 PM
Oh, an anonymous source, pointing the finger at 'a rich and powerful man'? That's not exactly credible.
Maybe they'll also find out that Sandusky was a witch.
BURN HIM!
Considering how things supposedly go for child molesters in prison, he might soon be wishing that they would.
Gotta figure Sandusky is going to do his time in a country club, no?
Why would you think that?
Quote from: sbr on August 11, 2012, 04:12:21 PM
Why would you think that?
Low risk inmate, at risk in a medium or high security facility.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: sbr on August 11, 2012, 04:12:21 PM
Why would you think that?
Low risk inmate, at risk in a medium or high security facility.
That's sensible, but if he's up before an elected judge I don't like his chances.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 11, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: sbr on August 11, 2012, 04:12:21 PM
Why would you think that?
Low risk inmate, at risk in a medium or high security facility.
That's sensible, but if he's up before an elected judge I don't like his chances.
Aren't appeals court judges appointed rather than elected?
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 11, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: sbr on August 11, 2012, 04:12:21 PM
Why would you think that?
Low risk inmate, at risk in a medium or high security facility.
That's sensible, but if he's up before an elected judge I don't like his chances.
Aren't appeals court judges appointed rather than elected?
Don't know about Pennsylvania, but certainly in some states ALL judges are elected.
And again, I don't know about Pennsylvania specifically, but in some states it's not like the federal penitentiary system where you have different facilities at different security levels for different types of prisoners. Some states have just one state prison (at least, that used to be true) and in others, the differences prisons just differ in what geographic part of the state they serve, not security level.
Of course, even within a given prison, you can have different security levels.
Yeah the so-called country clubs are usually federal facilities.
State facilities vary by state (obviously) - but typically nice prison facilities are not a high state budgetary priority. I don't know what the possibilities in Penn are but wouldn't give decent odds on there being any cushy billets out there.
Club Fed prisons are a myth anyways. Most of the programming in federal prisons has been stripped away since the mid 80s anyways and especially the "No Frills Prison" legislation in the mid 90s, which I think was Frank Lautenberg's initiative. All that, along with the much more significant PLRA, pretty much devastated prisoner rights for a long time.
And as for the state prison, I have a friend from Philadelphia (my female roommate's boyfriend who moved in with his 4-year-old son) who did 30 months minimum security in Penna. and, according to him at least, it was nothing nice. Huge dormitories is the norm in minimum.
And Sandusky's going to have to do his time in PC anyways to limit the chance of him getting killed, which basically entails 23 and 1 solitary.
It's hard to feel bad for the prisoners. They're there because they're bad people.
Holy shit! :yuk:
http://deadspin.com/5937380/the-details-of-minnesota-state-head-football-coach-todd-hoffners-child-porn-charges-are-horrifying
QuoteThe Details Of Minnesota State Head Football Coach Todd Hoffner's Child Porn Charges Are Horrifying
Timothy Burke
Minnesota State head football coach Todd Hoffner's been charged formally with felony counts of using his own children in a sexual performance and possession of child pornography, and the details outlined in the charges are unpleasant to read. The videos, featuring three children under the age of ten, were allegedly found on Hoffner's school-issued phone when a university employee attempted to back it up or repair it. From Mankato's Free Press:
A one-minute video created on June 26 showed the three children, one boy and two girls, with their backs to the camera and covered by towels, the complaint said. They drop the towels and turn toward the camera, exposing themselves. The boy allegedly fondles himself and the girls allegedly bend over and expose their anuses to the camera.
A much shorter video showed the girls dancing naked before the boy enters wearing only a football helmet, according to the complaint. The third video, about two minutes long, allegedly shows one of girls being woken at night by a male and told to go to the bathroom. After the girl gets up, the camera focuses in on the back side of her underwear, the complaint said.
Hoffner didn't exactly cover his tracks.
The children called the adult "dad" in the video and investigators determined through photos and facebook that the children in the video were Hoffner's children.
Hoffner's attorney called the videos "private family moments" and that "there's nothing in there that's graphic or sexually exploitive or anything along those lines." Judge George Harrelson set bail for Hoffner at $10,000 on the condition he only have contact with his children while another adult is present.
Yep. That's pretty bad.
QuoteHoffner's Polish attorney, Martinus, called the videos "private family moments" and that "there's nothing in there that's graphic or sexually exploitive or anything along those lines."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 05:49:05 AM
QuoteHoffner's Polish attorney, Martinus, called the videos "private family moments" and that "there's nothing in there that's graphic or sexually exploitive or anything along those lines."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1122.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl532%2FCharrizda%2Fi-see-what-you-did-there-spiderman-.jpg&hash=238295ddd2e1621975aad6692fe8bef5b39b3ba9)
What did he do? :o
Say hello to my leetle friend!
Pacino to play Joe Paterno.
http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/joe-paterno-movie-al-pacino-penn-state-gridiron-scandal/
Polanski should direct it.
:rolleyes: But cover up ONE active pedophile...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 03:44:14 PM
Gotta figure Sandusky is going to do his time in a country club, no?
Transferred to Pennsylvania's hardest core country club.
QuoteFormer Penn State assistant football coach and convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky was transferred Wednesday to a Pennsylvania state maximum-security prison.
According to CentreDaily.com, Sandusky was transferred for security reasons. The 68-year-old Sandusky will be confined to a prison cell for 22 to 23 hours of each day at the 1,800-bed State Correctional Institution in Greene, Pa., located in the southwestern part of the state, about 25 miles from Sandusky's hometown of Washington, Pa. The prison houses most of Pennsylvania's death-row inmates.
"Given the high-profile nature of this individual, coupled with the nature of his crimes, this makes him very vulnerable in a prison setting," said state corrections secretary John Wetzel in a statement.
By virtue of the transfer, Sandusky will in essence spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement, barring any further legal actions or appeals. He is serving a 30-to-60-year sentence for a variety of sexual crimes against several young boys during his time at Penn State.
Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola, is reportedly examining the nature of the transfer and what he will do next on behalf of his client, the web site noted.
In the hour or two that he will be allowed out of his prison cell each day, Sandusky will have extra supervision and escorts, according to Pennsylvania Corrections Department spokesperson Susan McNaughton. He will be allowed one hour of exercise per day and can shower three times per week. He also will be allowed to have personal property approved by prison officials, which can include a TV and radio.
Sandusky will eat all meals in his cell, and will have access to counseling, religion and medication within his cell, as well, prison officials added. While he will be allowed visitors, he will not be allowed to have any physical contact with visitors.
Sandusky is appealing his conviction and seeking a new trial based upon belief his legal team did not have adequate time to provide a defense for him on child sex abuse charges.
This time-out shit just got real!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogitoutb.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Ftime-out.jpg&hash=5629592d74dd74de802b0190675cdf6e84bcac46)
Perjury and obstruction of justice charges will be filed against graham spanier today.
Three felony charges.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/former-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-charged-sandusky-192109077--ncaaf.html
Ha! Spanier is so fucked! :lol:
link (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--indictment-of-ex-penn-state-president-reveals-disturbing-details-of-how-officials-dealt-with-jerry-sandusky01191010.html;_ylt=AqR__S8RiFw9NYbHwLm3VjIcvrYF;_ylu=X3oDMTQwczBhaHRtBG1pdANGRUFUVVJFRCBNZWdhdHJvbiBOQ0FBRgRwa2cDZTYzYjY1ZmQtZjA3Mi0zZDgxLWI5MTUtZDAwNjVlNmQwMjA4BHBvcwMyBHNlYwNtZWdhdHJvbgR2ZXIDMjJhZDFmMzMtMjQ3OS0xMWUyLWI5ZmEtNTUyYjA2ZjIwOWE5;_ylg=X3oDMTFqdXByMzhlBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANuY2FhZgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw--;_ylv=3)
QuoteIndictment of ex-Penn State president reveals disturbing details of how PSU dealt with Sandusky
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 4:20 PM EDT
Almost exactly one year after indicting Jerry Sandusky, Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz, the state's attorney general, Linda Kelly, both extended and tightened her noose Thursday with bold new criminal charges backed by sickening new information.
Former Penn State president Graham Spanier was indicted by a grand jury on eight counts of perjury, obstruction and endangering welfare of children after escaping charges a year ago. Additional charges of felony obstruction, conspiracy and endangerment were also filed against both Curley and Schultz, who are still awaiting trial on perjury and failure to report a crime.
As for Joe Paterno, the legendary football coach also in the middle of the 2001 decision to not turn Sandusky over to authorities, Kelly offered no comment on whether he would've been indicted. He's dead.
"That's the end of it," Kelly said at a noon media conference.
For everyone else, the horror story continues, the new charges and details laid out in a pounding 59-page grand jury "Presentment of Facts" which should produce fresh outrage over the potential cover-up of Sandusky's acts.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/spanier-schultz-curley_presentment-11-1-12.pdf
"This was not a mistake, an oversight or a misjudgment," Kelly said. "This was a conspiracy of silence by top officials at Penn State, working to actively conceal the truth, with total disregard to the suffering of children."
The new information is almost as disturbing to read as Sandusky's initial acts. Kelly always maintained the case was an ongoing investigation and said additional documents and witnesses came forward over the last year. That included material from Penn State, which she said was non-compliant to requests and a subpoena until after the initial indictments were handed down, Spanier and company were removed from power and the school's board of trustees demanded all employees comply with the investigation.
"The grand jury issued a subpoena in December 2010 but pertinent emails and other key evidence were never turned over until April 2012, after these men had left their jobs," Kelly said.
That includes obvious non-compliance with subpoena 1179, half-hearted searches for any documents involving Sandusky – including not going through files in the athletic department, where he worked for decades – and Spanier's blatant mischaracterizations to employees, board of trustee members and eventually a grand jury about his knowledge of the situation, most of it refuted by testimony from his own university attorney.
If you thought the Penn State part of the Sandusky scandal was bad, it just got worse. And any closure Monday's one-year anniversary of the initial indictments might bring have been reopened.
Spanier, through an attorney, declared his innocence and claimed these charges were a politically motivated attempt by Gov. Tom Corbett to take focus away from Corbett's slow perusal of the case when he was attorney general. Kelly, the attorney general, is a lame duck not seeking re-election next week and says the timing is based on the conclusion of the grand jury.
Sandusky, a former Penn State defensive coordinator, is in prison for at least 30 years, convicted in June for sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period. He was transferred Wednesday to a supermax facility in the southwest part of the state where he'll serve out his time in what is essentially solitary confinement. He plans on appealing his conviction, according to his attorney.
This case revolves around the decision to not turn Sandusky over to proper authorities after assistant coach Mike McQueary came forward in February 2001 telling first Paterno and then Schultz and Curley that he saw Sandusky in an otherwise empty Penn State locker room shower in an "extreme sexual position" with a young boy. Spanier was included on an email chain discussing what should be done.
Sandusky was investigated in 1998 by local police after a State College boy said he was lured into the showers and Sandusky hugged and rubbed his naked body on him from behind. No charges were filed but the grand jury believed an allegation of similar conduct by an unrelated, and in this case adult witness should have been treated seriously.
Instead Sandusky remained free for an additional decade where he continued to abuse children, sometimes on the Penn State campus where he retained access to athletic facilities, the football locker room and football games. Children identified at Sandusky's trial as Victims Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 9 were all abused during this period of silence. Civil attorneys say they have identified additional victims who may file suit against Penn State.
The grand jury appeared stunned by the differing ways that Schultz, Curley and Spanier dealt with the 1998 and 2001 allegations. In the first case, the boy and his father went directly to the police, meaning Penn State officials could only monitor developments. And monitor they did. Schultz, who oversaw the university police department, was in nearly constant contact with his police chief, Tom Harmon, over the situation and the two had extensive discussions about Sandusky even though the case was being handled by local, non-university police. They met within 36 hours of the initial charge and over the course of a month, Schultz took extensive notes, discussing the likelihood of genital contact between Sandusky and the boy and wondering in print, "is this opening of Pandora's box? Other children?"
Schultz kept Curley and Spanier updated throughout in a constant flurry of emails. It was common for Spanier to be informed of high-profile crimes that might reach media attention, according to staff testimony. While one email from Curley said he spoke to "the coach" there is no certainty that he meant Paterno since many emails often used purposefully vague terms. In 1998, however, Sandusky was still employed as defensive coordinator. It's difficult to imagine Paterno wasn't told.
When a local district attorney declined to charge Sandusky, his police report "was not filed under a typical criminal investigation, but was rather assigned an Administrative number. That would make the report very difficult to locate unless someone specifically knew identifiers of the case." This, numerous police agreed, was highly unusual.
On Feb. 10, 2001, McQueary came to Paterno's home and told him what he saw.
"Paterno informed the grand jury that McQueary described Sandusky fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy in the Lasch Building showers," the presentment reads. The next day, a Sunday, Paterno told Schultz and Curley about what McQueary said he saw.
The action here was strikingly different. In the first case the victim of a crime went to the cops. In the second case a witness to a crime went to Paterno. With police not already investigating, the administrators had time to plot a course. Schultz, the indictment alleges, "almost immediately called" Wendell Courtney of the McQuaide Blasko Law Firm which does extensive work as an outside counsel for the school. That decision suggests he was aware of the severity of the situation.
Courtney billed Penn State for 2.9 hours of work that Sunday. The reasoning according to the bill: "Conference with G Schultz re reporting of suspected child abuse; Legal research re same; Conference with G Schultz."
On Feb. 12, Schultz called Chief Harmon and asked about the status of the paperwork from 1998 Sandusky investigation. Namely was it still around and thus potentially discoverable. Harmon emailed back later that it was still there. Schultz never mentioned the new allegation of criminal sexual conduct on campus to his own chief of police.
It took an astounding seven to 10 days for Curley and Schultz to even bother speaking with McQueary to get his story directly. Even then, according to the presentment, the meeting lasted just 15 minutes and neither Curley nor Schultz asked a single question.
In the meantime Curley, Schultz and Spanier were in contact via email about how to approach the situation and whether to alert child welfare. Most of these emails, including Curley seemingly changing course after a meeting with Paterno and Spanier claiming discussing things with Sandusky directly was the more "humane" way, have been reported extensively.
They are no less painful to read in this context.
Later, when the three-year grand jury investigation began, the administrators were no less cooperative. They ignored major parts of a subpoena, offered little to no information and appeared most concerned about protecting themselves. Even after the trio, and Paterno, knew Sandusky was under investigation and each man had testified to the grand jury, Sandusky still maintained access to Penn State facilities and brought children, dubbed "guests," to football games.
It was revealed at Sandusky's June trial that he and his wife, Dottie, sat in a Beaver Stadium luxury box at a game, Paterno's last, the week before the Nov. 2011 indictment.
Then there was Schultz maintaining a folder in his office labeled "Sandusky" which he instructed one of his administrative assistants through the years to "never look" inside. On the day of his indictment, he had the file removed from his office and brought to his home.
The entire web laid out in the grand jury indictment is a horrific portrayal of self-preservation, arrogance and heartless conduct by administrators. The long-awaited charges against Spanier only amplify the situation.
While last summer Spanier went on a show of force public relations blitz – including his lawyer ripping the school's own Freeh Commission report – he'll have a far more difficult task answering these pointed questions at trial, especially with many of his public statements at odds with testimony from university lawyers, staffers and police.
For Schultz and Curley, the state has even more damning evidence they'll have to defend against at trial.
This does nothing to exonerate Paterno. It only raises additional questions about whether his influence over the administrators played an even more direct role in the slow, hapless non-investigation of Sandusky in 2001. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Perhaps testimony at trial will provide additional clarity.
The trials of Schultz and Curley, scheduled for January 2013 in Harrisburg, will almost certainly be moved back. Attorney General Kelly said she wants all three men tried together. Spanier will deserve extended time to prepare.
So this could drag out into fall of 2013 or even beyond, a never-ending nightmare for Penn State as the alleged criminal actions of its one-time leaders get uglier and uglier and uglier.
The governor of Pennsylvania is suing the NCAA :mad:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/01/16287231-governor-says-hell-sue-ncaa-over-sandusky-sanctions-against-penn-state?lite
QuoteGovernor says he'll sue NCAA over Sandusky sanctions against Penn State
By The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Gov. Tom Corbett said Tuesday he plans to sue the NCAA in federal court over sanctions imposed against Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.
The Republican governor scheduled a news conference for Wednesday on Penn State's campus in State College to announce the filing in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg.
The sanctions, agreed to by the university in July, included a $60 million fine that would be used nationally to finance child abuse prevention grants. State and federal lawmakers have raised objections to the money being spent outside Pennsylvania.
A message seeking comment on the expected lawsuit was left with the NCAA on Tuesday.
Last month, a Pennsylvania congressman said he was unhappy with how the NCAA responded to a request from the state's U.S. House delegation that the whole $60 million in Penn State fines be distributed to causes within the state.
NCAA president Mark Emmert had said in a Dec. 12 letter that a task force had been charged with allocating at least 25 percent of the fine money to programs in Pennsylvania.
Republican Rep. Charlie Dent said days later in a statement that Emmert's response was "unacceptable and unsatisfactory."
The NCAA said then that it stood by what Emmert said.
The fine was just part of college sports' governing body's sanctions on Penn State for its handling of the abuse scandal involving Sandusky, a former assistant under head football coach Joe Paterno. The landmark sanctions also included a four-year ban from postseason play and significant scholarship cuts for the marquee football program, which avoided being suspended, the so-called death penalty.
Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator, was convicted in June on charges he sexually abused 10 boys, some on campus. The 68-year-old was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in state prison.
Eight young men testified against him, describing a range of abuse they said went from grooming and manipulation to fondling, oral sex and anal rape when they were boys.
Sandusky didn't testify at his trial but has maintained his innocence, acknowledging he showered with boys but insisting he never molested them.
Good move.
Most governors can never become President. Nice for a man to know his limits.