menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Sickening scandal at Penn State
Page: 12 of 14
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 4:52 PM
OK, Robert, now we're on the same page. Yes, he was "retired" as a coach, but he was given a bonus, and special "emeritus" status, giving him access to the facilities. Was that a good plan? No. On the other hand, at that point they were fresh off an investigation, and he was not charged. Still, it makes you wonder what they really knew. Was he not charged only because political pressure was applied? Or because there was insufficient evidence? Or because the evidence was not credible? Knowing the answer to that makes a big difference in the reasonableness of the decision to give him continued access.
Paul Graham
General User
Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424
mail
Paul Graham
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 4:55 PM
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.


But if you check out the Freeh report, you'll see that he found no correlation between Sandusky departure from the staff and the allegations in 1998. Not sure what (if anything) that means...but it did run counter to my expectations.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 4:56 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
... 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.

I would presume that anyone that knew about it and did not report it can be charged with  "failure to report".
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 5:09 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Still, it makes you wonder what they really knew. Was he not charged only because political pressure was applied? Or because there was insufficient evidence? Or because the evidence was not credible? Knowing the answer to that makes a big difference in the reasonableness of the decision to give him continued access.


Agree. And it is my contention that we don't know the answer to that. Yet a proper prosecution of Paterno requires that we know that answer.

Maybe the Freeh report is exactly right on some points. But it may not be exactly right with regard to LC's question above.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
The Situation
General User
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957
mail
The Situation
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 7:59 PM
For the most part, I'm on Fox's boat. Unless Paterno and Sandusky were some kind of epic blood brothers I just can't figure out why Joe Pa would do hide this. I offered a possibility, but something just seems to be missing here. The evidence I've seen relating to Joe Pa so far appears circumstantial. 

And I think someone brought it up here earlier, how is it okay that Sandusky has in many ways become an afterthought?
Last Edited: 7/18/2012 8:00:40 PM by The Situation
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 7/18/2012 8:22 PM
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 8:56 PM
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.


When Sandusky retired, my impression - which could have been erroneous - was that he was being forced into retirement.  My impression was based in large part on his age - only about 54 at the time - and the absence of any insight into why he was retiring.
Maryland Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Post Count: 169
mail
Maryland Bobcat
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 9:43 AM
The Situation wrote:expand_more
For the most part, I'm on Fox's boat. Unless Paterno and Sandusky were some kind of epic blood brothers I just can't figure out why Joe Pa would do hide this. I offered a possibility, but something just seems to be missing here. The evidence I've seen relating to Joe Pa so far appears circumstantial. 

And I think someone brought it up here earlier, how is it okay that Sandusky has in many ways become an afterthought?


I don't think he's become an afterthought.  In my opinion there are two separate events when discsussing the PSU scandal.  The first is the criminal act by Sandusky itself, which was dealt with in a court of law.  With the verdict there has been some sense of closure.  There's no debate - the man is guilty.  The second part, however, is the cover-up of the criminal acts.  That's where the real "scanda" comes into play.  That is the part being discussing around the country at this time.  Following the Sandusky trial it's been proven he's guilty, now the focus is on why certain powerful officials, including Paterno, covered it up.

Why would Paterno hide it?  Obviously I don't have the answer to that, and nobody ever will, but I will say that power and reputation is a dangerous thingm and people will go to great measures to protect it.  As I've said before, the names Patero and Penn State have been essentially branded into one, and whether JoPa himself was actually guilty of certain acts is not relavant to some.  The fact is Paterno represents more than JoPa himself-  it represents the program and the university.  They all created that culture, and now have to live with the consequences.  The real problem isn't even really with Paterno himself - it's with the university who allowed him to become invincible, and for allowing a football coach's name to become synonymous with that of the university's.  
Maryland Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Post Count: 169
mail
Maryland Bobcat
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 9:48 AM


I dont' argue that there should be focus for PSU on how to move forward and correct a system that allowed this to happen, but for those who say tearing down a statue is just silly and unimportant at this point, I ask then why is that generally one of the first things done when new government regimes take over?  It's symbolic, and as long as that statue stands out front it of Beaver Stadium it illustrates that Paterno is still the undeniable leader of PSU football.  In order for the university to move on and institute those "fixes" this article mentions, it has to rebrand itself, and as long as that statue remains, and as long as the name Paterno is synonymous with the university, it will not happen.  I certainly agree that there needs to be things in place so that nobody ever forgets (I've been to a concentration camp in Germany, and several musuems there dedicated to the atrocities of the Holocaust so that people can learn from history and never forget), but to have a statue of the person who was the face of the program that committed atrocities right outside the home of that program is beyond absurd. 
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,709
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 10:20 AM
A Pittsburgh columnist thinks Penn State should cancel its season but doesn't think they will.  

Some key quotes:

"Perhaps the most aggravating argument is that the NCAA regulates the competitive aspect of collegiate sports and nothing else. It really is unfortunate that the NCAA, when it formed in 1906, didn’t make provisions for serial child rape and any subsequent cover-up. Hiding behind NCAA by-laws is ticky-tack nonsense and ignores common sense.

"The NCAA has authority to act unilaterally. This is the worst scandal in sports history. The world is watching.""


"He’s defending his dad, and I don’t blame him. But Jay Paterno looks foolish when he calls for more facts. Between a grand jury, a criminal trial and a 267-page report compiled by the former director of the FBI, we have a ton of facts. There is no hidden evidence that will salvage Joe Paterno’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: 7/19/2012 11:28 AM
Maryland Bobcat wrote:expand_more
...but to have a statue of the person who was the face of the program that committed atrocities right outside the home of that program is beyond absurd. 


Joe Paterno didn't commit the atrocities. That, perhaps, slip-of-the-keyboard illustrates my frustration. He is being vilified, almost as though he was the one showering with young boys. What remains is the question, What did Joe Paterno know about the atrocities?
Maryland Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Post Count: 169
mail
Maryland Bobcat
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:10 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
...but to have a statue of the person who was the face of the program that committed atrocities right outside the home of that program is beyond absurd. 


Joe Paterno didn't commit the atrocities. That, perhaps, slip-of-the-keyboard illustrates my frustration. He is being vilified, almost as though he was the one showering with young boys. What remains is the question, What did Joe Paterno know about the atrocities?


As I stated, the program (the institution really) committed the atrocities - all of them.  Yes, molesting boys were atrocities that were committed by one person, the fact that leaders of an institution, including Paterno, covered it up were just as horrific.  Over 400 interviews and 3.5 million documents were used in the Freeh Report, which indicate that he DID know, as did Spanier.  They both knew and they both covered it up. 

Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:41 PM
Maryland Bobcat wrote:expand_more
...but to have a statue of the person who was the face of the program that committed atrocities right outside the home of that program is beyond absurd. 


Joe Paterno didn't commit the atrocities. That, perhaps, slip-of-the-keyboard illustrates my frustration. He is being vilified, almost as though he was the one showering with young boys. What remains is the question, What did Joe Paterno know about the atrocities?


As I stated, the program (the institution really) committed the atrocities - all of them.  Yes, molesting boys were atrocities that were committed by one person, the fact that leaders of an institution, including Paterno, covered it up were just as horrific.  Over 400 interviews and 3.5 million documents were used in the Freeh Report, which indicate that he DID know, as did Spanier.  They both knew and they both covered it up. 



You are willing to accept the Freeh report as gospel truth. I am not. That is not to say I think the Freeh report is wrong, just that it could be wrong (or incomplete, or circumstantial) about what these people knew. That is a critical piece of information, and as I previously posted, a proper prosecution requires that accusation be thoroughly vetted before we start leveling penalties against these people.

But again, if you believe the Freeh report is factual, then you must believe that Paterno did anything to protect Sandusky, including forgiving child molestations in his own locker room. Why would Paterno be willing to do that? Why would Sandusky be worth that much to Paterno? So they were friends, but big deal. Child molestation would easily negate a friendship. Paterno could have told Sandusky to go away and never come back again. There would have been few questions asked, and all this would have never come out. But instead, as the story goes, Paterno hid Sandusky's behavior to protect PSU's reputation (and knowingly allowed Sandusky to continue to rape boys--in his own locker room). For me, that's a big stretch.
Mike Coleman
Administrator
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Near the Pristine Sandy Shores of Lake Erie, OH
Post Count: 1,999
mail
Mike Coleman
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 2:10 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
...but to have a statue of the person who was the face of the program that committed atrocities right outside the home of that program is beyond absurd.


Joe Paterno didn't commit the atrocities. That, perhaps, slip-of-the-keyboard illustrates my frustration. He is being vilified, almost as though he was the one showering with young boys. What remains is the question, What did Joe Paterno know about the atrocities?



As I stated, the program (the institution really) committed the atrocities - all of them. Yes, molesting boys were atrocities that were committed by one person, the fact that leaders of an institution, including Paterno, covered it up were just as horrific. Over 400 interviews and 3.5 million documents were used in the Freeh Report, which indicate that he DID know, as did Spanier. They both knew and they both covered it up.


You are willing to accept the Freeh report as gospel truth. I am not. That is not to say I think the Freeh report is wrong, just that it could be wrong (or incomplete, or circumstantial) about what these people knew. That is a critical piece of information, and as I previously posted, a proper prosecution requires that accusation be thoroughly vetted before we start leveling penalties against these people.

But again, if you believe the Freeh report is factual, then you must believe that Paterno did anything to protect Sandusky, including forgiving child molestations in his own locker room. Why would Paterno be willing to do that? Why would Sandusky be worth that much to Paterno? So they were friends, but big deal. Child molestation would easily negate a friendship. Paterno could have told Sandusky to go away and never come back again. There would have been few questions asked, and all this would have never come out. But instead, as the story goes, Paterno hid Sandusky's behavior to protect PSU's reputation (and knowingly allowed Sandusky to continue to rape boys--in his own locker room). For me, that's a big stretch.

Those are good, and mind-boggling, questions. Answer this. Why would Catholic cardinals do the same, but even on a bigger scale? They wouldn't, according to your doubts, yet they did. And from what I can tell so did Paterno.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 2:13 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
... What remains is the question, What did Joe Paterno know about the atrocities?
...
You are willing to accept the Freeh report as gospel truth. I am not. That is not to say I think the Freeh report is wrong, just that it could be wrong (or incomplete, or circumstantial) about what these people knew. ...

The Freeh report may or may not have reached correct conclusions, but no one is challenging the facts that are contained in the report, so far as I know. For example, I haven't heard anyone disputing the validity of the emails they found.

We do know Paterno was aware of the 1998 charges, and we know he was aware of the specifics of the later incident. We know he was involved in discussions with Curley and Shulz. We know that "after discussing it with Paterno, they decided not to turn it over to authorities. What we do not know is what Paterno had to say. Did he recommend not turning it over? Did they talk about other things, and he just came to that conclusion on his own after the meeting? While we don't know that, we do know that he didn't call Child Protective services on his own, and he didn't do anything to keep Sandusky away from the program even after being aware of both the 1998 and subsequent allegations.

Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
But again, if you believe the Freeh report is factual, then you must believe that Paterno did anything to protect Sandusky, including forgiving child molestations in his own locker room. Why would Paterno be willing to do that? Why would Sandusky be worth that much to Paterno? So they were friends, but big deal. Child molestation would easily negate a friendship. Paterno could have told Sandusky to go away and never come back again. There would have been few questions asked, and all this would have never come out. But instead, as the story goes, Paterno hid Sandusky's behavior to protect PSU's reputation (and knowingly allowed Sandusky to continue to rape boys--in his own locker room). For me, that's a big stretch.

I think you are correct that friendship can't be the reason. If he were a true friend, he would want to see his friend get help, not facilitate more incidents. Therefore the only reason that makes any sense is that he viewed this as something that reflected badly on him, and he would have done anything to protect his personal reputation, and the reputation of PSU. To me that seems very possible.
Last Edited: 7/19/2012 2:14:16 PM by L.C.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 2:36 PM
I can't answer that question, Mike. Although you make a good point. Perhaps the answer is related to LC's suggestion that Paterno somehow felt Sandusky's behavior reflected upon Paterno? I can't figure out why that would be. Why would Paterno feel that Sandusky's rape of child reflected badly on Paterno? It seems to make no sense. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, Paterno didn't even have to bring charges against Sandusky (and publicity), he could simply demand that Sandusky go away.

The way out of this mess for Paterno seemed enormously easy, yet he didn't choose that path. It's astonishing. Which doesn't mean I don't believe it's possible, but I do think it's astonishing.

I also think Paterno's solution would have been easier than the Catholic cardinals, who would have had to accept the negative publicity had they made a move to remove these priests. I can imagine how that resulted in inaction.
Last Edited: 7/19/2012 2:43:22 PM by Robert Fox
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 2:54 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
...The way out of this mess for Paterno seemed enormously easy, yet he didn't choose that path. It's astonishing. Which doesn't mean I don't believe it's possible, but I do think it's astonishing. ..

I think it has to be viewed in a context of generational differences, too. I think that as you go further back, it was more standard practice to try to deal with things without getting the authorities involved, whereas today people are quicker to call them in. Furthermore it may reflect a naivety about that type of behavior. I'm not saying that because of generational differences he thought it was not wrong; I'm saying that because of generational differences he was less apt to fully comprehend that the only thing that would stop it was prison.

Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
... Perhaps the answer is related to LC's suggestion that Paterno somehow felt Sandusky's behavior reflected upon Paterno? I can't figure out why that would be. Why would Paterno feel that Sandusky's rape of child reflected badly on Paterno? It seems to make no sense.....

Had it become public in 2002, don't you think people would have asked "wow, they found out about it in 1998, and continued to give him access for 3 years?" There would have been a scandal, though not nearly what there is now.
Last Edited: 7/19/2012 2:59:38 PM by L.C.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 2:58 PM
I just saw on the ticker the Big Ten is considering given Delaney and a committee of presidents the power to fire coaches if it hurts the conference's reputation. I don't think that's a good idea.
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 3:02 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
I just saw on the ticker the Big Ten is considering given Delaney and a committee of presidents the power to fire coaches if it hurts the conference's reputation. I don't think that's a good idea.


HA! Indiana's coach will get fired every other year!
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 3:20 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Had it become public in 2002, don't you think people would have asked "wow, they found out about it in 1998, and continued to give him access for 3 years?" There would have been a scandal, though not nearly what there is now.


Yes, people would have asked that. But it could have been explained. "In 1998 there was only an unproven accusation that we felt had no merit. In 2002 we're sure it's true. As a result, Sandusky is no longer associated with PSU and is being prosecuted."
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 3:20 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
I just saw on the ticker the Big Ten is considering given Delaney and a committee of presidents the power to fire coaches if it hurts the conference's reputation. I don't think that's a good idea.


That's a very bad idea.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,709
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 5:59 PM
After reading the exchanges between Fox, Maryland Cat, L.C., and others, two possible explanations for Paterno's behavior come to mind.  This is obviously not exhaustive, but two possibilities that should be considered:

1.  Sandusky had something on Paterno that he threatened to go public with if Paterno came down too heavy on him, or went to the authorities.  This could have been knowledge of an ethical lapse in recruiting, such as a falsification of a recruit's record, impermissible phone calls to recruits by another assistant (remember the Indiana basketball scandal), or some other clear violation of an NCAA rule.  Or, it could have been something even worse, some serious ethical or moral issue involving Paterno or his family.  Or, it could have even been a threat to say something that was completely false but that would be hard to disprove in the court of public opinion.  
2.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sandusky kept telling Paterno after each incident that JoePa became aware of that he was seeking counseling and that he was reformed and that it would never happen again.  JoePa kept falling for this because of his friendship.  Kind of like battered-wife syndrome this could have been some type of battered-friend syndrome.  

#2 on the surface would cast JoePa in a slightly better light in terms of motivation, but it still leaves him doing the wrong thing and not doing his professional duty to report this behavior to authorities.  It also shows a callous disregard for the boys involved.  However, as L.C. pointed out, the concept of generational differences might come into play here as a partial explanation, not justification, of JoePa's behavior.

#1 might seem far-fetched to some, but it would certainly explain Paterno's seemingly inexplicable behavior in a way that seems more plausible to me than #2, which seems to me to be the greater stretch.

There are, of course, many other possible explanations, but these two leaped to my mind as possibilities.     
Last Edited: 7/19/2012 6:08:34 PM by OhioCatFan
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 6:00 PM
I don't think it's a given that Paterno was a rational actor.
Turney13
General User
T13
Member Since: 7/28/2010
Post Count: 364
person
mail
Turney13
mail
Posted: 7/19/2012 9:05 PM
God Complex.
Showing Messages: 276 - 300 of 328



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