menu
Logo
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Sickening scandal at Penn State
Page: 11 of 14
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 7/16/2012 3:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Maryland Bobcat wrote:expand_more

"Edit: And if you've really got such a problem with the level of emphasis that a university, ANY university, puts on athletics, then maybe a college-sports bulletin board isn't the best place to spend your time on a monday late morning."

To correlate my opinion that of not supporting college athletics, or not caring about its place within a university is unfair.  I happen to believe it has an integral part of the daily life of a university, which is why I have taken great interest in this particular story.  I've also never advocated shutting down the entire athletics department.  There are many institutions across the country that run athletic programs without having "big-time" college football teams to finance them.  My point was that you can't let the worry of how to fund the volleyball team influence the penalty on the football team. 

One of the major problems with college football that I continue to read about, and have read about for a long time on this message board is the division of power in FBS football.  Major football
programs such as PSU thrive on money and power, and build up to the point that it's simply not just an NCAA sport, or part of an athletic department - it runs the university and the entire culture surrounding it.  Money is the ultimate problem in this sport, which is why we as fans continue to be saddled with an absurd bowl system, and an even more absurd "playoff".  It's all about the dollar, and these programs are out of control.  I also don't think they should be penalized hard just because I find pleasure in one of the "big boys" going down, but I do believe it's an opportunity for the NCAA, hypocritacal as they can be, to perhaps realize there may be a problem in college football. 

Believe it or not I'm not adamant that the program be shut down, but I think there needs to be healthy debate to point out why PSU is in the position they are currently in, and why so many other programs could find themselves (god help us) in similar situations.  I just don't think it's as black-and-white as saying these kids or coaches had nothing to do with it, or there is no precedent in place for this, therefore it should not be shut down. On the flip side it's not as easy to say "shut it down" as some columns have pointed out.  Both sides have made excellent and legitimate arguments. It's not lost on me that a death penalty would impact innocent people.  I just think we all need to step back from the standpoint of how this will affect athletics, and realize that the negative impact reaches far greater than a handful of teams and current players. 



Fair enough
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,709
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 7/16/2012 4:23 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OT: Next time you drive that direction take a look and see if 1014 Van Buren Street  is still there.  When I Google-Earthed it [did I just invent a new word?] it looked to me like a warehouse or some type of industrial building was there now.  I also think I remember that there might have been both a Van Buren Drive and a Van Buren Street on the Google Earth map.  It's Van Buren Street that I lived on.  Perhaps, you should PM me about this so we can take it off list.  At least it's been a light diversion from the heart-wrenching PSU scandal, which BTW I find you a voice of sanity on, particularly your very last post on the subject.
Last Edited: 7/16/2012 4:24:51 PM by OhioCatFan
Maryland Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Post Count: 169
mail
Maryland Bobcat
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 9:17 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
OT: Next time you drive that direction take a look and see if 1014 Van Buren Street  is still there.  When I Google-Earthed it [did I just invent a new word?] it looked to me like a warehouse or some type of industrial building was there now.  I also think I remember that there might have been both a Van Buren Drive and a Van Buren Street on the Google Earth map.  It's Van Buren Street that I lived on.  Perhaps, you should PM me about this so we can take it off list.  At least it's been a light diversion from the heart-wrenching PSU scandal, which BTW I find you a voice of sanity on, particularly your very last post on the subject.


It looks like there are still homes there - check it out in regular Google maps and then look at the street view. 

Yeah, a diversion from the story is a good thing, I suppose. I'm not sure why I've become so vocal about it (been reading this board for a decade, and rarely post).  I guess between this and the "playoff" I'm at my breaking point with "major" college football.  In the end there is no easy answer or fix for the PSU mess, but if there's a a minor bright spot its that it may have started to open people's eyes to how influential these programs are if you let them define your university. 
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 10:44 AM
settings_applications edit_note
When all those calling for an end to Penn State football also call for an end to the Catholic Church, I'll start to listen.

Sanction them heavily for lack of institutional control.  Prosecute those who deserve prosecution.  But, the football program and the school continue to exist.  Just like any other entity that would be caught up in such a scandal.  Like the Catholic Church.
Last Edited: 7/17/2012 10:44:36 AM by Ohio69
anorris
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: Bristol, CT
Post Count: 2,262
mail
anorris
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 12:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
When all those calling for an end to Penn State football also call for an end to the Catholic Church, I'll start to listen.

Sanction them heavily for lack of institutional control.  Prosecute those who deserve prosecution.  But, the football program and the school continue to exist.  Just like any other entity that would be caught up in such a scandal.  Like the Catholic Church.
This would be more along the lines of closing an individual church, not the entire organization.  Nobody is (seriously and realistically) calling for the disbanding of college football as a whole.
ou79
General User
O79
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 671
person
mail
ou79
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 12:28 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Just watched a short slice of an interview of NCAA President on KDKA - 2 in Pittsburgh.  He specifically did not rule out the death penalty for PSU and said all options were on the table as far as the NCAA was concerned.   He also stated that this scandal was much worse than what SMU did.
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,759
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 2:15 PM
settings_applications edit_note
ou79 wrote:expand_more
Just watched a short slice of an interview of NCAA President on KDKA - 2 in Pittsburgh.  He specifically did not rule out the death penalty for PSU and said all options were on the table as far as the NCAA was concerned.   He also stated that this scandal was much worse than what SMU did.


If we learn that the PSU Board is holding a previously unscheduled meeting, it could signal that its members are paying serious attention to media criticism and worrisome comments by the NCAA president.  Such a meeting would have virtually all interested parties - PSU administration, football coaches and players, fans, scheduled opponents, et al - holding their collective breath.

At this early juncture, I doubt if the PSU Board will lash out at any criticism.  To do so could - would - be disastrous. 
ou79
General User
O79
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 671
person
mail
ou79
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 2:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I may be mistaken, but I believe the Board of Trustees has scheduled a meeting for sometime this week, maybe tomorrow in Scranton.  Not sure though.
AudioCat'13
General User
AC13
Member Since: 10/1/2007
Location: Nowheresville, OH
Post Count: 164
person
mail
AudioCat'13
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 4:03 PM
settings_applications edit_note
So if something like the death penalty happens, or PSU cancels their season, do we still get paid or get reimbursed some how? who would we play? someone like UVA, Navy, Temple who is also on the schedule? Or do we need to make a phone call to an FCS or DII school? 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 5:05 PM
settings_applications edit_note

It seems many on here believe Joe Paterno knew the whole story about Sandusky and his rapes/molestations. That is now being presented as indisputable fact.

I'm uncomfortable with that. If he knew, why would he not take action? The explanation is that he wanted to protect the PSU football program. But if that were Joe's primary goal, wouldn't it be easier to throw Sandusky under the bus, and save PSU's reputation? I am now being asked to believe that Joe knew about the sordid details and decided it was smarter to protect Sandusky than to have Sandusky arrested. Or that Paterno was so protective of Sandusky that he willingly looked the other way. That's preposterous.

However, I just saw an article that Brown University is removing Paterno's name from a football award he received with them in 1977--as though the evidence against Paterno is undeniable truth. Of course, Paterno cannot defend himself, but that hasn't stopped Brown.

As with so many things, this smacks of a lynch mob. That people are desperate to distance themselves from Paterno and PSU and are making sudden, premature decisions. Wouldn't it make sense for Brown to withhold any decisions until the court case is completed, until all the facts come in?

Or is it irresistable to rush to judgement, to be so clairvoyant we can dismiss the trial. Does Brown's decision serve the purpose of protecting victims, or does it merely draw attention to themselves, so they can appear saintly by contrast? There's no reward for arriving at the wrong decision first.

 

OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,709
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 7/17/2012 9:19 PM
settings_applications edit_note
From the Freeh Report:

"Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized." [Emphasis mine]

It's not proof from a court of law, I'll grant you that.  However, one can't try Paterno now, so this may be the best information we'll get from one who did a rather exhaustive investigation, and who was chosen because he could be objective and had no axe to grind.




Last Edited: 7/17/2012 9:22:32 PM by OhioCatFan
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 8:17 AM
settings_applications edit_note
And my point is that the Freeh's report alone is not enough to convict Paterno. But Brown, as one example, has already weighed in, convicting Paterno and leveling judgement.
Bucho
General User
B
Member Since: 7/22/2011
Location: OH
Post Count: 96
person
mail
Bucho
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 9:39 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohiofan23 wrote:expand_more
So if something like the death penalty happens, or PSU cancels their season, do we still get paid or get reimbursed some how? who would we play? someone like UVA, Navy, Temple who is also on the schedule? Or do we need to make a phone call to an FCS or DII school? 


Temple would need the late addition badly.  As it stands now, they only have 11 games on the schedule.
The Situation
General User
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957
mail
The Situation
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 9:42 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more

It seems many on here believe Joe Paterno knew the whole story about Sandusky and his rapes/molestations. That is now being presented as indisputable fact.

I'm uncomfortable with that. If he knew, why would he not take action? The explanation is that he wanted to protect the PSU football program. But if that were Joe's primary goal, wouldn't it be easier to throw Sandusky under the bus, and save PSU's reputation? I am now being asked to believe that Joe knew about the sordid details and decided it was smarter to protect Sandusky than to have Sandusky arrested. Or that Paterno was so protective of Sandusky that he willingly looked the other way. That's preposterous. 
 



I too feel very uncomfortable about how this PSU case is being handled as indisputable fact. I think this case parallels the type of hysteria that allows the federal government to achieve their expansive powers (previously unprecedented).

But to answer your question, "Wouldn't it be easier to throw Sandusky under the bus?". I say no.

Here's why. I truly believe Joe saw a friend (Sandusky) who was falsely accused in 1998 (and acquited). However, when the GA brought it to his attention that he actually witnessed Sandusky raping kids, the reality set in. That was in March of 2002.

In 2000, Penn State went 5-7. In 2001, Penn State went 5-6. The old man surely would have been force forced to step down (gracefully though), a fact the lynch mob continues to neglect.

It was a moral lapse on Joe Pa's part. By exposing Sandusky, his own legacy would have been tarnished, despite (what I believe) would have been a clean conscience at that point. The easiest decision was to cover it up.

By the way, the 2002 team went 9-4 that fall..
Last Edited: 7/18/2012 9:43:52 AM by The Situation
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 9:55 AM
settings_applications edit_note
The Situation wrote:expand_more

It seems many on here believe Joe Paterno knew the whole story about Sandusky and his rapes/molestations. That is now being presented as indisputable fact.

I'm uncomfortable with that. If he knew, why would he not take action? The explanation is that he wanted to protect the PSU football program. But if that were Joe's primary goal, wouldn't it be easier to throw Sandusky under the bus, and save PSU's reputation? I am now being asked to believe that Joe knew about the sordid details and decided it was smarter to protect Sandusky than to have Sandusky arrested. Or that Paterno was so protective of Sandusky that he willingly looked the other way. That's preposterous. 
 


In 2000, Penn State went 5-7. In 2001, Penn State went 5-6. The old man surely would have been force forced to step down (gracefully though), a fact the lynch mob continues to neglect.

It was a moral lapse on Joe Pa's part. By exposing Sandusky, his own legacy would have been tarnished, despite (what I believe) would have been a clean conscience at that point. The easiest decision was to cover it up.

By the way, the 2002 team went 9-4 that fall..


Thanks for your response, but I'm not sure I understand your point above. Are you saying that because PSU was performing poorly in '00 and '01, that Joe's outing of Sandusky would have been the final nail in his coffin, and Paterno would have been asked to step down?

If that's what you're saying, I don't agree. I think Paterno outing Sandusky would have been seen as noble, and would have helped Paterno keep his job despite the poor recent performance. I think Joe would have known that. If that' true, it again begs the question: Why would Paterno protect Sandusky at the expense of the PSU football program? No friendship is worth that.
The Situation
General User
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957
mail
The Situation
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 10:15 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Thanks for your response, but I'm not sure I understand your point above. Are you saying that because PSU was performing poorly in '00 and '01, that Joe's outing of Sandusky would have been the final nail in his coffin, and Paterno would have been asked to step down?

If that's what you're saying, I don't agree. I think Paterno outing Sandusky would have been seen as noble, and would have helped Paterno keep his job despite the poor recent performance. I think Joe would have known that. If that' true, it again begs the question: Why would Paterno protect Sandusky at the expense of the PSU football program? No friendship is worth that.


Joe Paterno would have been 75 years old at the time of the GA's report. It's easy in hindsight to say, "Oh, hey he coached until he was 85! They'd let him stick around." For the past decade, many speculated yearly whether that year would be the coach's last.

Had the event become public, or had they planned to make the news public, at a time convenient for them, I believe  Joe Pa would have been forced to step down.

In October of 2001 (just months prior to the GA notifying Joe Pa about Sandusky), Penn State defeated Ohio State in the greatest comeback at Beaver Stadium at that time, 29-27. That game was Joe Pa's 324th victory. With that win he had officially passed Bear Bryant on the wins list.

I believe the President and AD would have seen it as a great time to send the old coach out on a good note. Under his own "free will". It was his second straight losing season. Who knew if he could pull it together?

It's my opinion that they would have seen the career win milestone as the last highnote of Joe Pa's tenure. Even though Joe Pa didn't want to quit, I don't think the boosters would suppport his lack of control of the program at that point (in all aspects). They still did afterall, like every big time program, want a national championship.

If Peyton Manning could get traded, I don't doubt that Joe Pa could have gotten let go.
Last Edited: 7/18/2012 10:17:41 AM by The Situation
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 12:13 PM
settings_applications edit_note
You may be right about that, and I'm willing to consider it. However, I still have trouble believing the alternative, that Paterno would knowingly sit on the Sandusky info for the sole purpose of saving PSU's reputation. That explanation is just too unbelievable. As a result, people are portraying Paterno now as some kind of monster because that fits with the narrative. And I think that narrative is now taking a life of its own. All of the latest vitriol targets Paterno. You start to feel as though Sandusky is lost in the rhetoric.

To your point, would Paterno sit on the info in order to save his own job? Maybe, but I find that also hard to believe. Number one, why would PSU fire him for doing the right thing? Why would Paterno be willing to sacrifice a fine career (at age 75) for the sole purpose of hiding a despicable act?

I have trouble with both potential explanations.
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,759
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 12:45 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
You may be right about that, and I'm willing to consider it. However, I still have trouble believing the alternative, that Paterno would knowingly sit on the Sandusky info for the sole purpose of saving PSU's reputation. That explanation is just too unbelievable. As a result, people are portraying Paterno now as some kind of monster because that fits with the narrative. And I think that narrative is now taking a life of its own. All of the latest vitriol targets Paterno. You start to feel as though Sandusky is lost in the rhetoric.

To your point, would Paterno sit on the info in order to save his own job? Maybe, but I find that also hard to believe. Number one, why would PSU fire him for doing the right thing? Why would Paterno be willing to sacrifice a fine career (at age 75) for the sole purpose of hiding a despicable act?

I have trouble with both potential explanations.


Rob, I can understand why you would want to believe that Paterno wouldn't knowingly cover up for Sandusky and the reputation of the football program. But I'm not sure why you have difficulty believing that. 

As you know, the ongoing history of sports, politics, business, religion, healthcare, etc is littered with coverups by individuals who had enjoyed theretofore stellar reputations for integrity. 

Although the evidence to date of Paterno's coverup and underlying rationale might be seen as less than legally iron-clad, I do tend to believe that Paterno failed to act apprpriately because, foremost, he was concerned about negative publicity for his program. 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 1:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I absolutely agree there are numerous examples of corruption in all walks of life, and that there is a distinct possibility of that here. However, If Paterno wanted to shield PSU from negative publicity, it would seem rather an easy choice: dump Sandusky. At the very least, fire him. But instead, ostensibly, Paterno decided it was better to not only look the other way, but also keep Sandusky on staff--all because Sandusky was his friend. 

That's the part that is very difficult for me to believe. I could be convinced that Paterno was corrupt. But in this case, Paterno would have to be both corrupt and have unwavering dedication to Sandusky--so much so, that he would overlook a heinous crime.
Maryland Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Post Count: 169
mail
Maryland Bobcat
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 2:03 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Sanction them heavily for lack of institutional control.  Prosecute those who deserve prosecution.  But, the football program and the school continue to exist. 


The issue could become the ability of the school and the football program's ability to exist together - at least in the next year or two.  First and foremost this is an institution of higher learning, and a good one at that.  The problem is that most people oustide of Pennsylvania do not realize that because they associate Penn St with the football program/Paterno.  That is an issue that PSU brought on themselves, and now have to deal with.  In order rebrand itself as a institution of great academics and integrity, it may be forced to implement harsh penalties on itself, including canceling the season.  The school is ultimately at fault due to the lack of control of one atheltics program.  If your board - preferably comprising of people with a great deal of independence from the University  -doesn't have ultimate control, then you are doomed.

Also, this was reported today:

In November 2004, four of Penn State's leaders, including then-president Graham Spanier, sat down at Joe Paterno's kitchen table on a Sunday morning. The men asked the iconic coach to retire. Paterno said no, and that was that.

That same month, seven members of Penn State's board of trustees proposed sweeping reforms that would have strengthened the board's oversight power of Spanier and other campus leaders, including Paterno, according to documents obtained this week by "Outside the Lines." The group told the full board, "Decisions scrutinized with the benefit of hindsight need to withstand the test of being informed decisions."

But the board never took a vote on the proposal. Spanier and then-board chairwoman Cynthia Baldwin considered the reforms -- and, just as Paterno had done, said no, three current trustees say.
Last Edited: 7/18/2012 2:04:42 PM by Maryland Bobcat
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 2:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
... If Paterno wanted to shield PSU from negative publicity, it would seem rather an easy choice: dump Sandusky. At the very least, fire him. But instead, ostensibly, Paterno decided it was better to not only look the other way, but also keep Sandusky on staff--all because Sandusky was his friend. ...

I'm confused by this post. Shortly after the 1998 investigation was completed, Sandusky was officially retired from his position as coach.
Maryland Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Post Count: 169
mail
Maryland Bobcat
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 2:41 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
As with so many things, this smacks of a lynch mob. That people are desperate to distance themselves from Paterno and PSU and are making sudden, premature decisions. Wouldn't it make sense for Brown to withhold any decisions until the court case is completed, until all the facts come in?

Or is it irresistable to rush to judgement, to be so clairvoyant we can dismiss the trial. Does Brown's decision serve the purpose of protecting victims, or does it merely draw attention to themselves, so they can appear saintly by contrast? There's no reward for arriving at the wrong decision first. 
 


I'm failing to see how this is a lynch mob, or how any decisions, such as the Brown one mentioned obove, are a rush to judgement.  The scandal first went public in March of 2011, and while it didn't really make national news until Dec. 2011, it's still has been several months before these judgements have been made.  People have let the grand jury do it's work, they let the Sandusky trial do its work, and have finally let the Freeh investigation do its work.  At every step of the way evidence has compounded that Joe Paterno's response to these crimes was dishonorable at best.  At every step of the way he (and the other three) insisted on an honorable discharge for Sandusky, as well as keeping him financially intact.  Not once - NOT ONCE - did Paterno show any proof of concern for the kids being molested.  It's also proof that in 1999, after knowing what a monster Sandusky was, Paterno wrote a note suggesting a "Volunteer Position Director" for his 'ole pal Sandusky. 

So,no, I don't believe Brown University, or any other entity for that matter, who decides the time is right to part ways with the name Paterno is rushing to judgement (whatever the intent).  Penn State themselves have accepted the Freeh Report, and have agreed to its findings and suggestions.  Personally, I think it's more of a statement at this point for those entities who have not parted ways with the name.  Penn State, and most importantly JoPa himself, allowed the name Paterno to represent their entire university, and to be immortalized.  That's fine when things are going well, but now that same name is associated with scandal, and most people do not want any part of it. 

"Paterno, the legendary coach that so many people instinctively protected before thinking about the welfare of the 11-year-old he knew was being sexually assaulted by Sandusky, is dead. So too is the Second Mile foundation, the place we now know Sandusky used to recruit his victims, the place whose leadership called Sandusky preying on the charity's kids a "non-issue," the place Penn State continued to do business with after knowing that Sandusky was assaulting children, the place where 75 percent of its board were Penn State alumni."
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,559
person
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 3:12 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Joe Paterno has been involved in covering up and hiding things for years, not just Sandusky. He's always thought of the program first whenever it came to players in trouble. Why are we surprised by this?
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 4:23 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
... If Paterno wanted to shield PSU from negative publicity, it would seem rather an easy choice: dump Sandusky. At the very least, fire him. But instead, ostensibly, Paterno decided it was better to not only look the other way, but also keep Sandusky on staff--all because Sandusky was his friend. ...

I'm confused by this post. Shortly after the 1998 investigation was completed, Sandusky was officially retired from his position as coach.


Actually, LC, I'm confused. I thought he was still on staff, but I guess he was actually employed by the Second Mile Foundation. Although I'm not sure about that. For whatever reason, Sandusky still had access to the football facilities, so I assume he had Paterno's permission for that. Which I think adds to my disbelief. Paterno didn't even have to fire Sandusky. He just had to make him go away. And he still didn't do it. Just to protect PSU's reputation.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 4:44 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Maryland Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Penn State themselves have accepted the Freeh Report, and have agreed to its findings and suggestions. 


I did not know that. But having said that, PSU is in no position to deny the report, and if they do find fault with it, would need a surrogate to make that claim.

Maryland Bobcat wrote:expand_more
"Paterno, the legendary coach that so many people instinctively protected before thinking about the welfare of the 11-year-old he knew was being sexually assaulted by Sandusky, is dead. So too is the Second Mile foundation, the place we now know Sandusky used to recruit his victims, the place whose leadership called Sandusky preying on the charity's kids a "non-issue," the place Penn State continued to do business with after knowing that Sandusky was assaulting children, the place where 75 percent of its board were Penn State alumni."


I assume this quote is from the Freeh report. The question I have is this, the report claims the Second Mile leadership (as well as Joe Paterno) knew about the child rapes, yet did nothing to stop it. What do those leadership people say about that? What would Paterno say about that? Do they admit that's true? Or do they deny knowing about the child rapes? What is the truth?
 
I don't have a dog in this fight. But I want justice served properly. I also think it's not unreasonable to consider the possibility that these people didn't know about Sandusky's behavior.
Showing Messages: 251 - 275 of 328
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)