And if you want my terrible non-lawyering skills here is the base argument on why the NCAA was out of line punishing Penn State as it did given the precedent of the Miami case:
The NCAA had a similar situation crop up at the University of Miami, in which booster Nevin Shapiro admitted to providing millions of dollars in impermissible and illegal benefits to under aged recruits, including prostitutes, alcohol, and off shore gambling trips. At the time the information broke, twelve recruits on that years squad alone were suspended, with the total number affected estimated to be in the hundreds. That is dozens of crimes committed that affected minors.
This came from a school that was already under probation for compliance issues already. And yet the NCAA readily dismissed talks of the Death Penalty, a threat they used to extort Penn State into avoiding the standard NCAA investigation and appeals process, despite PSU having no prior record of non-compliance or lack of institutional control. The NCAA then proceeded to leverage even greater than the maximum proposed against Miami against Penn State, while the Miami violations are still under investigation years later. This indicates that the NCAA in these instances is less concerned with the well being of minors, and more concerned with their public image in handling these matters.
If the Miami violations are still under investigation, you simply can't compare the two cases.
What you are doing is essentially arguing that the plea deal someone took was too harsh because another criminal hasn't even been punished...when the other criminal is still on trial.
Your argument is moot. Penn State didn't insist on the standard investigation and appeals process, which was their right, and instead came to a settlement / agreement with the NCAA. If they waived their contractual right to an investigation and appeal, they waived that right and you simply can't compare them to another institution that chose not to waive that investigation and appeal process. Especially when that process is still ongoing.
Saying that the NCAA 'extorted' Penn State is as goosey as it gets.
The NCAA already lost the "go join another league" argument back in the 80's when TV contracts were on the line. They don't get to play that card in court anymore, and pulling it up as an argument in this discussion kinda shows how little you've researched into this.
The relevant case. The NCAA is recognized as having a monopoly over college athletics. So, with that out of the way, the argument takes two paths: 1) Did the NCAA put their tax-exempt status at risk by not following their own bylaws in this case, and (what the State is pursuing) 2) The NCAA is unfairly restricting Penn State's competitive balance by imposing the sanctions.
Both points are very, very scary for the NCAA, and if this actually gets past the initial hearing and doesn't get dismissed, my guess is the NCAA is going to settle out of court as quick as they can. A long protracted discovery period would very much put their tax exempt status in jeopardy, unless the NCAA is magically unlike every other non-profit out there worth more than a few volunteers collective savings accounts. Not to mention the fact that PR disaster a court case makes with all the inner workings and emails aired out.
That case doesn't say what you think it says. Whether or not NCAA is a monopoly is not important to an anti-trust case, what is important is if its actions are anti-competive to competitors. In the cited case they were. What the case says is "The NCAA cannot bar schools from participating in other NCAA sports if they decide to use a different league for their football program because that behavior is anti-competitive". I.E. The NCAA cannot use its other sports leagues as a leverage for its football monopoly.
In addition it says that the NCAA can't bar schools from televising their games but nothing about sanctions for violating the membership contract. Note that PSU will not be stopped from broadcasting its games, not stopped from joining another league for football, they are simply having the benefits of the NCAA contract withheld as punishment for failing to uphold their end of the bargain.
Penn State could make the argument that their exclusion and punishment is the anticompetitive effect. Yes, I have a background in antitrust and the concept of this suit from that perspective makes sense.
No they cannot. Because Penn State is not another league, Penn State is a party to the NCAA contract they signed. The NCAA has no obligation to make the PSU football team competitive with other football teams. They indeed, have no obligation to let the PSU football team compete with other football teams(which are NCAA members) under the NCAA banner, except as allowed by the legal contract PSU and the NCAA signed. They have an obligation to not be anti-competitive towards football leagues. They cannot prevent Penn State from having a football program, televising that football program, or playing other teams with that football program. They can only prevent PSU from having an NCAA football program and using NCAA resources. The first would be anti-competitive, the second would not be so.
When you say the first thing it makes me mistrust the second Munkus.
Except the NCAA didn't enforce it's internal rules. It bypassed and skipped them entirely, which is illegal, since they are a tax exempt non-profit.
Essentially the NCAA signed another contract with PSU(to the benefit of PSU). What is illegal about that?
If PSU is benefiting then PSU and the State don't have standing to sue. (since winning would hurt the state more than losing). The only ones who might have standing would be other schools, who would argue that the stricter penalties from an investigation would bring them more revenue due to prospects not going to PSU, but that would be a stretch.
That I feel like I can buy? Depending where PSU is theoretically getting the money for the fine and how their AD and the overall school finances interact.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Not particularly dealing with the PA vs NCAA case, but relevant to the discussion that the NCAA is wholly corrupt and incompetent in it's investigation practices:
They had Shapiro's lawyer on their own payroll. "Somehow." Any of your PAers out there that are unemployed, I suggest going to work for the NCAA, because apparently if you just show up and say "Hey I'm working for you now", HR will cut you a check no questions asked.
On phone, so I don't have the link, but the NCAA agreed to keep the first 12 million which is in escrow in the state of PA while that lawsuit goes forward. Still going to child abuse funds, etc.
Her line about Paterno's firing pisses me off. No, Sue, his firing wasn't capricious - your husband tried to pull rank on the Board, and forced them to remind everyone what the actual chain of command was.
Her line about Paterno's firing pisses me off. No, Sue, his firing wasn't capricious - your husband tried to pull rank on the Board, and forced them to remind everyone what the actual chain of command was.
I kinda read that as the method. Him being fired wasn't necessarily wrong. Sending an old friend to your house late in the evening with a phone number to call, to be fired, is a dick move for someone that worked there for 61 years and at that point was under no suspicion of wrong doing. I mean, the sheer mustache twirling nonsense of it is insane. It's not like anyone there didn't have the Paterno's number. And at that point the State DA said Paterno was guilty of no wrong doing, and no charges were being filed against him.
But you know, that goes back to it being Corbett who was pushing for Paterno and Spanier to be axed despite no charges being filed. Corbett is also the idiot that trotted out the head of the State Police to give his pompous little "They should have called us" speech that was so goddamned factually incorrect for PA state policy it made my brain hurt, but it stirred up all the crazy media sensationalism.
Also worth noting the NCAA's hilarious incompetence in their motion for dismissal:
In the very first page the NCAA claims that Corbett can't sue on behalf of Penn State because he is on the Board of Trustees and they voted to accept the consent decree. Which is hilarious because: 1) Penn State isn't suing, so the him being on the board means shit. And 2) The Board never actually ratified the decree.
It's like their lawyers never bothered to even check...well anything. Which should be unsurprising at this point I suppose since apparently they believe they get to write their own laws.
Her line about Paterno's firing pisses me off. No, Sue, his firing wasn't capricious - your husband tried to pull rank on the Board, and forced them to remind everyone what the actual chain of command was.
I kinda read that as the method. Him being fired wasn't necessarily wrong. Sending an old friend to your house late in the evening with a phone number to call, to be fired, is a dick move for someone that worked there for 61 years and at that point was under no suspicion of wrong doing. I mean, the sheer mustache twirling nonsense of it is insane. It's not like anyone there didn't have the Paterno's number. And at that point the State DA said Paterno was guilty of no wrong doing, and no charges were being filed against him.
But you know, that goes back to it being Corbett who was pushing for Paterno and Spanier to be axed despite no charges being filed. Corbett is also the idiot that trotted out the head of the State Police to give his pompous little "They should have called us" speech that was so goddamned factually incorrect for PA state policy it made my brain hurt, but it stirred up all the crazy media sensationalism.
Also worth noting the NCAA's hilarious incompetence in their motion for dismissal:
In the very first page the NCAA claims that Corbett can't sue on behalf of Penn State because he is on the Board of Trustees and they voted to accept the consent decree. Which is hilarious because: 1) Penn State isn't suing, so the him being on the board means shit. And 2) The Board never actually ratified the decree.
It's like their lawyers never bothered to even check...well anything. Which should be unsurprising at this point I suppose since apparently they believe they get to write their own laws.
I have no problem with how he was fired. He needed a reminder of exactly who works for who when he tried to pull rank on the Board and tell them not to worry about him.
And the Board implicitly ratified the decree by allowing their agent, the president of PSU, to enter into it.
Yeah, the first step towards claiming it was forced on PSU was to have the board of PSU of which Corbett is a member, refuse to accept the deal. If you sit on your ass and do nothing, I am liable to think you accept the deal your subordinate has struck.
The fact that Corbett never publicly tried to get the board to reject the deal is pretty telling about how "forced" their acceptance was.
Shit, the board was probably overjoyed at the thought of getting this deal. Can you imagine having a public hearing where the leadership of PSU had to explain their actions? Having to explain why they barred Sandusky from using the sporting facilities? Then having to explain why they didn't contact the authorities?
The punishment they would have gotten in the aftermath of such a hearing would make this one, look like a love tap.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Her line about Paterno's firing pisses me off. No, Sue, his firing wasn't capricious - your husband tried to pull rank on the Board, and forced them to remind everyone what the actual chain of command was.
I kinda read that as the method. Him being fired wasn't necessarily wrong. Sending an old friend to your house late in the evening with a phone number to call, to be fired, is a dick move for someone that worked there for 61 years and at that point was under no suspicion of wrong doing. I mean, the sheer mustache twirling nonsense of it is insane. It's not like anyone there didn't have the Paterno's number. And at that point the State DA said Paterno was guilty of no wrong doing, and no charges were being filed against him.
But you know, that goes back to it being Corbett who was pushing for Paterno and Spanier to be axed despite no charges being filed. Corbett is also the idiot that trotted out the head of the State Police to give his pompous little "They should have called us" speech that was so goddamned factually incorrect for PA state policy it made my brain hurt, but it stirred up all the crazy media sensationalism.
Also worth noting the NCAA's hilarious incompetence in their motion for dismissal:
In the very first page the NCAA claims that Corbett can't sue on behalf of Penn State because he is on the Board of Trustees and they voted to accept the consent decree. Which is hilarious because: 1) Penn State isn't suing, so the him being on the board means shit. And 2) The Board never actually ratified the decree.
It's like their lawyers never bothered to even check...well anything. Which should be unsurprising at this point I suppose since apparently they believe they get to write their own laws.
I have no problem with how he was fired. He needed a reminder of exactly who works for who when he tried to pull rank on the Board and tell them not to worry about him.
And the Board implicitly ratified the decree by allowing their agent, the president of PSU, to enter into it.
You don't see an issue with PSU being hammered by the NCAA for their leadership members acting without the Boards Approval or knowledge, but when they are being punished it's absolutely fine for the President to sign the consent decree without contacting the board or running it by them? Like, seriously. What. The. Fuck.
The NCAA forced the PSU acting president into the exact situation they were punishing them for. You're acting like the people that are pleased the LAPD is going trigger happy while hunting down Dorner. It doesn't matter what the crime is, you do not get to break the system to prosecute it.
Engaging in an illegal cover-up and making a business decision you are empowered to make as an executive appointed by the board are not even comparable.
Engaging in an illegal cover-up and making a business decision you are empowered to make as an executive appointed by the board are not even comparable.
It's not even apple's and oranges.
In regards to the NCAA penalties, it's pretty damn close. The NCAA alleged their penalties were because the Board did not have sufficient oversight of the University President in his actions. Then the NCAA makes the President sign the decree with a gag order that he is to tell no one about it or else they get hit with the death penalty. Again, you do not get to go playing Wild West Justice because you feel like it.
I honestly don't know what to think of Paterno anymore. First I was supportive of him, then I backed off, now I'm on the fence.
Man was a hypocrite who thought of his own legacy long before helping young boys being raped by someone he personally knew. No better than any of the catholic hiearchy who covered up their priests raping young boys.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I honestly don't know what to think of Paterno anymore. First I was supportive of him, then I backed off, now I'm on the fence.
Man was a hypocrite who thought of his own legacy long before helping young boys being raped by someone he personally knew. No better than any of the catholic hiearchy who covered up their priests raping young boys.
Whatever else you think about what happened, read Jim Clemente's part of the report published yesterday.
Ya know, I hear about the Paterno criticism of the Freeh report...and it makes me think of Sandusky sitting there whining on appeal he didn't have time to prepare for the case.
So you can point out one or two inconsistencies or things that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Ok, so what? Without that, there is still a mountain of evidence against you.
And you know what, if Paterno lived, he may not have faced criminal charges in all this. I think a competent lawyer could build reasonable doubt that he was directly involved in the coverup.But we do know - absolutely - that he was complicit.
When it comes to Paterno's reputation, we aren't in court. We don't need 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. There is no way to reconcile him as anything but someone who played a good act of 'always doing the right thing' but took the easy and wrong route on quite possibly the most important and difficult thing in his life.
Ya know, I hear about the Paterno criticism of the Freeh report...and it makes me think of Sandusky sitting there whining on appeal he didn't have time to prepare for the case.
So you can point out one or two inconsistencies or things that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Ok, so what? Without that, there is still a mountain of evidence against you.
And you know what, if Paterno lived, he may not have faced criminal charges in all this. I think a competent lawyer could build reasonable doubt that he was directly involved in the coverup.But we do know - absolutely - that he was complicit.
When it comes to Paterno's reputation, we aren't in court. We don't need 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. There is no way to reconcile him as anything but someone who played a good act of 'always doing the right thing' but took the easy and wrong route on quite possibly the most important and difficult thing in his life.
Take the time to do the research and read both the Freeh report and the rebuttal posted yesterday in the entirety. The #1 best thing about the Rebuttal isn't that it went on to say "Paterno was completely innocent" (because it doesn't). It went on to show just how fucking easy it is to miss this stuff going on. Clemente's report had a story about a family who's son was being molested literally in front of them, without them having any idea because "Hey, this dude is a cool guy, why wouldn't we trust him?"
Honestly, the most interesting thing to me from yesterday is not what was contained within the report, but rather that Freeh's rebuttal to the report directly contradicts his own report.
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.
The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.
Honestly, the most interesting thing to me from yesterday is not what was contained within the report, but rather that Freeh's rebuttal to the report directly contradicts his own report.
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.
The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.
I'm not sure what you see as some smoking-gun contradiction. If Paterno said 'talk to my lawyer and schedule an interview' both of those statements are true.
Quite simply, Paterno isn't in court facing criminal charges. He's not going to walk because his lawyer created a possible scenario that he may not have been actively involved in a coverup. I'm not on a jury. Maybe he was actively involved in the coverup, maybe he let other people do his dirty work for him. I really don't give a shit.
As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is clear that he didn't take action anyone should consider reasonable. I don't care if sex offenders are easy to trust or fool some people, Paterno was neglectful and bad things happened to kids because of it.
I'm just glad he lived long enough to see what his real legacy would be.
Honestly, the most interesting thing to me from yesterday is not what was contained within the report, but rather that Freeh's rebuttal to the report directly contradicts his own report.
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.
The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.
I'm not sure what you see as some smoking-gun contradiction. If Paterno said 'talk to my lawyer and schedule an interview' both of those statements are true.
Quite simply, Paterno isn't in court facing criminal charges. He's not going to walk because his lawyer created a possible scenario that he may not have been actively involved in a coverup. I'm not on a jury. Maybe he was actively involved in the coverup, maybe he let other people do his dirty work for him. I really don't give a shit.
As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is clear that he didn't take action anyone should consider reasonable. I don't care if sex offenders are easy to trust or fool some people, Paterno was neglectful and bad things happened to kids because of it.
I'm just glad he lived long enough to see what his real legacy would be.
No one except experts who study child predators and abuse and say "Yes, it is very easy for people to dismiss allegations such as this for people they believe are 'good guys'". This is literally the worst goddamned attitude because you are fooling yourself into thinking you will be able to spot any potential situation because you're "better" than he was. The fact of the matter is that this should teach us to question everything and no one is infallible.
Honestly, the most interesting thing to me from yesterday is not what was contained within the report, but rather that Freeh's rebuttal to the report directly contradicts his own report.
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.
The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.
I'm not sure what you see as some smoking-gun contradiction. If Paterno said 'talk to my lawyer and schedule an interview' both of those statements are true.
Quite simply, Paterno isn't in court facing criminal charges. He's not going to walk because his lawyer created a possible scenario that he may not have been actively involved in a coverup. I'm not on a jury. Maybe he was actively involved in the coverup, maybe he let other people do his dirty work for him. I really don't give a shit.
As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is clear that he didn't take action anyone should consider reasonable. I don't care if sex offenders are easy to trust or fool some people, Paterno was neglectful and bad things happened to kids because of it.
I'm just glad he lived long enough to see what his real legacy would be.
No one except experts who study child predators and abuse and say "Yes, it is very easy for people to dismiss allegations such as this for people they believe are 'good guys'". This is literally the worst goddamned attitude because you are fooling yourself into thinking you will be able to spot any potential situation because you're "better" than he was. The fact of the matter is that this should teach us to question everything and no one is infallible.
Right.
Which is why when you hear allegations like this, you make sure that experts on child predators and abuse find out about it.
You can't say Paterno didn't believe McQueary because he very clearly trusted him and his judgement. You can't say it was because Paterno was closer or trusted Sandusky more, unless you discount the credibility new report which distances their relationship. You can't discount the new report, because that's pretty much the only thing the pro-Paterno crowd has going for them.
In my eyes, at the absolute very least, Paterno was neglectful in making sure the proper authorities and individuals were notified. He was neglectful in making sure that this was properly investigated. He was neglectful in allowing Sandusky to have any association with his program pending him finding the outcome of the investigation.
No way does this look good for Paterno. He was neglectful and did things the easy way. He let it be someone else's problem and - at BEST and giving him the benefit of the doubt took the minimum possible amount of responsibility for what he was told.
Fuck Paterno. I understand why his wife and kids would back him (hell, I think Sandusky's wife still backs him) but fuck him and fuck the people who are going to twist everything to try and find a platform to defend him from.
Honestly, the most interesting thing to me from yesterday is not what was contained within the report, but rather that Freeh's rebuttal to the report directly contradicts his own report.
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.
The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.
I'm not sure what you see as some smoking-gun contradiction. If Paterno said 'talk to my lawyer and schedule an interview' both of those statements are true.
Quite simply, Paterno isn't in court facing criminal charges. He's not going to walk because his lawyer created a possible scenario that he may not have been actively involved in a coverup. I'm not on a jury. Maybe he was actively involved in the coverup, maybe he let other people do his dirty work for him. I really don't give a shit.
As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is clear that he didn't take action anyone should consider reasonable. I don't care if sex offenders are easy to trust or fool some people, Paterno was neglectful and bad things happened to kids because of it.
I'm just glad he lived long enough to see what his real legacy would be.
No one except experts who study child predators and abuse and say "Yes, it is very easy for people to dismiss allegations such as this for people they believe are 'good guys'". This is literally the worst goddamned attitude because you are fooling yourself into thinking you will be able to spot any potential situation because you're "better" than he was. The fact of the matter is that this should teach us to question everything and no one is infallible.
Right.
Which is why when you hear allegations like this, you make sure that experts on child predators and abuse find out about it.
He was investigated and cleared by the police before. He adopted six kids, and was a foster parent for even more. He founded a charity that worked with underprivileged kids and was cleared there as well. This wasn't Joe Schmo being an assistant coach for his sons soccer team. He was screened somewhere in the order of at least 10+ times by these experts (Once even in an actual criminal investigation) and cleared every time. But it's Penn State that ultimately failed here?
Hell, before Paterno even found out, Dranov (a doctor, and mandated reported, who had training covering identifying abuse in patients) questioned McQuery with his father and saw no reason to call the police based off of what McQuery said.
Experts had their chance and failed miserably time and time again (even during an actual police investigation.)
Fuck Paterno. I understand why his wife and kids would back him (hell, I think Sandusky's wife still backs him) but fuck him and fuck the people who are going to twist everything to try and find a platform to defend him from.
Because attitudes like yours do more to hurt potential future victims. That is why people "defend" him. This is something that goes on every day and affects hundreds to thousands of kids in this country, and a staggering majority of the cases are family and friends doing the abusing completely unnoticed because sitting a kid on your lap, or hugging him just a little too long are a lot less suspicious when it's Uncle Fred, and not Creepy Guy with a Pedo Stache.
One of the most disturbing cases of my career best illustrates many of the topics I have described above and will hopefully give the reader greater insight into how challenging it is for people to identify “nice-guy” acquaintance child sex offenders, especially for those who know and are close to the molester.
At the time, I was on the FBI/NYPD Joint Sexual Exploitation of Children Task Force and we were investigating allegations against a veteran FBI Agent named Richard Taus. Like Sandusky, Taus had a high-profile job and enjoyed a great reputation in the community. He was a highly decorated chopper pilot in Vietnam; he was lauded for adopting a son from Vietnam. He even founded a junior soccer league in Long Island, New York, that catered to hundreds of young boys, many of whom he molested over a number of years. And like Sandusky, there are friends and colleagues who to this day believe he was wrongfully convicted.
One of the many potential victims whom I interviewed during the investigation had a very interesting story to tell. First, I spoke with the boy’s mother. She assured me that she had already asked her approximately 6-year-old son whether Taus had molested him. He said no, so she believed there was no reason for me to talk to her son. I told her I would just like to ask a few questions and it would not take long. She reluctantly agreed.
I interviewed the boy while he sat beside his mother and asked the boy a number of questions before I inquired whether Taus played any games with him. He answered that yes, they played the tickle game. I asked how the game was played. At that point, I recall the boy turning to his mother and saying, “You remember Mom, when I was sitting on his lap last time he was here talking to you. He had his hand up my shorts tickling my privates. He tickles me and I have to try not to laugh.” I looked at the mother and all the color had drained from her face. She could not believe that Taus had molested her son right in front of her very eyes and she had no idea that it had happened. She trusted Taus so much based on his profession, his reputation, and her repeated positive interactions with him that she never even questioned the fact that he liked to have her son sit on his lap.
That's a mother that had her son fondled in front of her, who was absolutely convinced that nothing had ever happened to the boy. If that can happen, how can we judge decisions made off second and third party accounts?
We hold the people who hear those second and third party accounts accountable as well.
I know that abuse happens, and the main reason it happens with such frightening regularity is because people don't want to think about it...don't want to deal with it...don't want to deal with the consequences of addressing it. People like Joe Paterno who are more worried about how it will affect their image than the safety of kids. People who are more worried about how their spouse will react then the kid who is being victimized. People who are more worried about losing a friend for asking then what may actually be happening to the child.
I know more about people looking the other way then I'll ever discuss. I've also seen people who have the strength of character to refuse to look the other way and kept more children from being victimized. Those people who refused to look the other way shouldn't be the exception.
I haven't seen anything to indicate that McQueary was known to make things up, or even to exaggerate. Paterno was negligent - and every part of his 'do what's right' character was shown to be nothing more than an act - because he took the easy way out. He didn't do the hard thing when it mattered.
His only legacy deserves to be a warning to other people who might cover something like this up because they think it's the easy way out.
People like Joe Paterno who are more worried about how it will affect their image than the safety of kids. People who are more worried about how their spouse will react then the kid who is being victimized. People who are more worried about losing a friend for asking then what may actually be happening to the child.
Except that no, studies show that these people by and large don't actually value their image over the children, it's that when a list of possible scenarios for actions occurring come up, "Longtime community Pillar is actually a serial pedophile" isn't anywhere near the top of the list. This is a case where Occam's Razor fails, because our initial gut reaction is to shrug it off and go with what you "know" about the person.
Besides the whole notion that Paterno had no reason to cover it up to "protect his image". He wasn't being accused, and he didn't even like Sandusky all that much because of how shitty he coached and recruited his last few years.
I know more about people looking the other way then I'll ever discuss.
No, you should discuss it. I would be very interested in hearing much more about these people. It's all very educational and needs to be talked about more.
Honestly, the most interesting thing to me from yesterday is not what was contained within the report, but rather that Freeh's rebuttal to the report directly contradicts his own report.
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.
The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.
I'm not sure what you see as some smoking-gun contradiction. If Paterno said 'talk to my lawyer and schedule an interview' both of those statements are true.
Quite simply, Paterno isn't in court facing criminal charges. He's not going to walk because his lawyer created a possible scenario that he may not have been actively involved in a coverup. I'm not on a jury. Maybe he was actively involved in the coverup, maybe he let other people do his dirty work for him. I really don't give a shit.
As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is clear that he didn't take action anyone should consider reasonable. I don't care if sex offenders are easy to trust or fool some people, Paterno was neglectful and bad things happened to kids because of it.
I'm just glad he lived long enough to see what his real legacy would be.
No one except experts who study child predators and abuse and say "Yes, it is very easy for people to dismiss allegations such as this for people they believe are 'good guys'". This is literally the worst goddamned attitude because you are fooling yourself into thinking you will be able to spot any potential situation because you're "better" than he was. The fact of the matter is that this should teach us to question everything and no one is infallible.
Right.
Which is why when you hear allegations like this, you make sure that experts on child predators and abuse find out about it.
He was investigated and cleared by the police before. He adopted six kids, and was a foster parent for even more. He founded a charity that worked with underprivileged kids and was cleared there as well. This wasn't Joe Schmo being an assistant coach for his sons soccer team. He was screened somewhere in the order of at least 10+ times by these experts (Once even in an actual criminal investigation) and cleared every time. But it's Penn State that ultimately failed here?
Hell, before Paterno even found out, Dranov (a doctor, and mandated reported, who had training covering identifying abuse in patients) questioned McQuery with his father and saw no reason to call the police based off of what McQuery said.
Experts had their chance and failed miserably time and time again (even during an actual police investigation.)
So you want us to believe that Paterno only became aware after Mcquery brought it to him? That the stalled investigations and sudden departure in the late 90's was not due to his child fondling ways? COME THE FUCK ON.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Honestly, the most interesting thing to me from yesterday is not what was contained within the report, but rather that Freeh's rebuttal to the report directly contradicts his own report.
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.
The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.
I'm not sure what you see as some smoking-gun contradiction. If Paterno said 'talk to my lawyer and schedule an interview' both of those statements are true.
Quite simply, Paterno isn't in court facing criminal charges. He's not going to walk because his lawyer created a possible scenario that he may not have been actively involved in a coverup. I'm not on a jury. Maybe he was actively involved in the coverup, maybe he let other people do his dirty work for him. I really don't give a shit.
As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is clear that he didn't take action anyone should consider reasonable. I don't care if sex offenders are easy to trust or fool some people, Paterno was neglectful and bad things happened to kids because of it.
I'm just glad he lived long enough to see what his real legacy would be.
No one except experts who study child predators and abuse and say "Yes, it is very easy for people to dismiss allegations such as this for people they believe are 'good guys'". This is literally the worst goddamned attitude because you are fooling yourself into thinking you will be able to spot any potential situation because you're "better" than he was. The fact of the matter is that this should teach us to question everything and no one is infallible.
Right.
Which is why when you hear allegations like this, you make sure that experts on child predators and abuse find out about it.
He was investigated and cleared by the police before. He adopted six kids, and was a foster parent for even more. He founded a charity that worked with underprivileged kids and was cleared there as well. This wasn't Joe Schmo being an assistant coach for his sons soccer team. He was screened somewhere in the order of at least 10+ times by these experts (Once even in an actual criminal investigation) and cleared every time. But it's Penn State that ultimately failed here?
Hell, before Paterno even found out, Dranov (a doctor, and mandated reported, who had training covering identifying abuse in patients) questioned McQuery with his father and saw no reason to call the police based off of what McQuery said.
Experts had their chance and failed miserably time and time again (even during an actual police investigation.)
So you want us to believe that Paterno only became aware after Mcquery brought it to him? That the stalled investigations and sudden departure in the late 90's was not due to his child fondling ways? COME THE FUCK ON.
Which goes to show just how much you've followed what went on beyond quick snippets on ESPN and the like. Sandusky wasn't forced out due to the 98 investigation. The last few years his defenses were majorly under performing given the talent they had on them, and his recruiting had wound down because he was focusing on running the 2nd Mile. Now I get you didn't really follow PSU football back then, but him retiring wasn't a surprise for anyone that did, other than the fact that some people thought he would take over for Paterno when he retired. Paterno told him that wasn't happening in 98 (before the child abuse investigation).
Given the fact that several people testified under oath that Paterno never knew of the 98 investigation, that because of how the 98 investigation was handled, it would have been illegal for PSU staff to inform Paterno of it, and the fact that the Freeh report, which was so willing to jump to any number of other conclusions without factual basis, straight up said "Yeah, there's no reason to think that Paterno knew about 98, or was the reason Sandusky retired".
Yes. I do believe that it was not due to his child fondling ways. And apparently anyone who has done any investigative work at all into all of this feels the same way. So I'm not exactly sure what makes you so special.
Posts
If the Miami violations are still under investigation, you simply can't compare the two cases.
What you are doing is essentially arguing that the plea deal someone took was too harsh because another criminal hasn't even been punished...when the other criminal is still on trial.
Your argument is moot. Penn State didn't insist on the standard investigation and appeals process, which was their right, and instead came to a settlement / agreement with the NCAA. If they waived their contractual right to an investigation and appeal, they waived that right and you simply can't compare them to another institution that chose not to waive that investigation and appeal process. Especially when that process is still ongoing.
Saying that the NCAA 'extorted' Penn State is as goosey as it gets.
That case doesn't say what you think it says. Whether or not NCAA is a monopoly is not important to an anti-trust case, what is important is if its actions are anti-competive to competitors. In the cited case they were. What the case says is "The NCAA cannot bar schools from participating in other NCAA sports if they decide to use a different league for their football program because that behavior is anti-competitive". I.E. The NCAA cannot use its other sports leagues as a leverage for its football monopoly.
In addition it says that the NCAA can't bar schools from televising their games but nothing about sanctions for violating the membership contract. Note that PSU will not be stopped from broadcasting its games, not stopped from joining another league for football, they are simply having the benefits of the NCAA contract withheld as punishment for failing to uphold their end of the bargain.
No they cannot. Because Penn State is not another league, Penn State is a party to the NCAA contract they signed. The NCAA has no obligation to make the PSU football team competitive with other football teams. They indeed, have no obligation to let the PSU football team compete with other football teams(which are NCAA members) under the NCAA banner, except as allowed by the legal contract PSU and the NCAA signed. They have an obligation to not be anti-competitive towards football leagues. They cannot prevent Penn State from having a football program, televising that football program, or playing other teams with that football program. They can only prevent PSU from having an NCAA football program and using NCAA resources. The first would be anti-competitive, the second would not be so.
When you say the first thing it makes me mistrust the second Munkus.
Essentially the NCAA signed another contract with PSU(to the benefit of PSU). What is illegal about that?
If PSU is benefiting then PSU and the State don't have standing to sue. (since winning would hurt the state more than losing). The only ones who might have standing would be other schools, who would argue that the stricter penalties from an investigation would bring them more revenue due to prospects not going to PSU, but that would be a stretch.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/1/23/3907780/ncaa-investigation-nevin-shapiro-case
They had Shapiro's lawyer on their own payroll. "Somehow." Any of your PAers out there that are unemployed, I suggest going to work for the NCAA, because apparently if you just show up and say "Hey I'm working for you now", HR will cut you a check no questions asked.
Always my favorite. The prosecution was prejudicial.
He'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddled-with kids?
Yes!
NCAA files to have the anti-trust lawsuit dismissed, contains factually incorrect information concerning the governing board voting consent on the first page.
Sue Paterno's report comes out this weekend, and she will appear on Katie Couric on Monday.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/01/30/ncaa-obannon-players-lawsuit-name-and-likeness/1877031/
Everything else aside, that right there will destroy the NCAA as we know it.
Her line about Paterno's firing pisses me off. No, Sue, his firing wasn't capricious - your husband tried to pull rank on the Board, and forced them to remind everyone what the actual chain of command was.
I kinda read that as the method. Him being fired wasn't necessarily wrong. Sending an old friend to your house late in the evening with a phone number to call, to be fired, is a dick move for someone that worked there for 61 years and at that point was under no suspicion of wrong doing. I mean, the sheer mustache twirling nonsense of it is insane. It's not like anyone there didn't have the Paterno's number. And at that point the State DA said Paterno was guilty of no wrong doing, and no charges were being filed against him.
But you know, that goes back to it being Corbett who was pushing for Paterno and Spanier to be axed despite no charges being filed. Corbett is also the idiot that trotted out the head of the State Police to give his pompous little "They should have called us" speech that was so goddamned factually incorrect for PA state policy it made my brain hurt, but it stirred up all the crazy media sensationalism.
Also worth noting the NCAA's hilarious incompetence in their motion for dismissal:
In the very first page the NCAA claims that Corbett can't sue on behalf of Penn State because he is on the Board of Trustees and they voted to accept the consent decree. Which is hilarious because: 1) Penn State isn't suing, so the him being on the board means shit. And 2) The Board never actually ratified the decree.
It's like their lawyers never bothered to even check...well anything. Which should be unsurprising at this point I suppose since apparently they believe they get to write their own laws.
I have no problem with how he was fired. He needed a reminder of exactly who works for who when he tried to pull rank on the Board and tell them not to worry about him.
And the Board implicitly ratified the decree by allowing their agent, the president of PSU, to enter into it.
The fact that Corbett never publicly tried to get the board to reject the deal is pretty telling about how "forced" their acceptance was.
Shit, the board was probably overjoyed at the thought of getting this deal. Can you imagine having a public hearing where the leadership of PSU had to explain their actions? Having to explain why they barred Sandusky from using the sporting facilities? Then having to explain why they didn't contact the authorities?
The punishment they would have gotten in the aftermath of such a hearing would make this one, look like a love tap.
You don't see an issue with PSU being hammered by the NCAA for their leadership members acting without the Boards Approval or knowledge, but when they are being punished it's absolutely fine for the President to sign the consent decree without contacting the board or running it by them? Like, seriously. What. The. Fuck.
The NCAA forced the PSU acting president into the exact situation they were punishing them for. You're acting like the people that are pleased the LAPD is going trigger happy while hunting down Dorner. It doesn't matter what the crime is, you do not get to break the system to prosecute it.
It's not even apple's and oranges.
In regards to the NCAA penalties, it's pretty damn close. The NCAA alleged their penalties were because the Board did not have sufficient oversight of the University President in his actions. Then the NCAA makes the President sign the decree with a gag order that he is to tell no one about it or else they get hit with the death penalty. Again, you do not get to go playing Wild West Justice because you feel like it.
Man was a hypocrite who thought of his own legacy long before helping young boys being raped by someone he personally knew. No better than any of the catholic hiearchy who covered up their priests raping young boys.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Whatever else you think about what happened, read Jim Clemente's part of the report published yesterday.
http://paterno.com/Resources/Docs/CLEMENTE_FINAL_REPORT_2-7-2013.pdf
So you can point out one or two inconsistencies or things that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Ok, so what? Without that, there is still a mountain of evidence against you.
And you know what, if Paterno lived, he may not have faced criminal charges in all this. I think a competent lawyer could build reasonable doubt that he was directly involved in the coverup.But we do know - absolutely - that he was complicit.
When it comes to Paterno's reputation, we aren't in court. We don't need 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. There is no way to reconcile him as anything but someone who played a good act of 'always doing the right thing' but took the easy and wrong route on quite possibly the most important and difficult thing in his life.
Take the time to do the research and read both the Freeh report and the rebuttal posted yesterday in the entirety. The #1 best thing about the Rebuttal isn't that it went on to say "Paterno was completely innocent" (because it doesn't). It went on to show just how fucking easy it is to miss this stuff going on. Clemente's report had a story about a family who's son was being molested literally in front of them, without them having any idea because "Hey, this dude is a cool guy, why wouldn't we trust him?"
I mean, Louis Freeh is a hack, but the Paterno report is more a legal defense than honest reporting.
I'm not sure what you see as some smoking-gun contradiction. If Paterno said 'talk to my lawyer and schedule an interview' both of those statements are true.
Quite simply, Paterno isn't in court facing criminal charges. He's not going to walk because his lawyer created a possible scenario that he may not have been actively involved in a coverup. I'm not on a jury. Maybe he was actively involved in the coverup, maybe he let other people do his dirty work for him. I really don't give a shit.
As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is clear that he didn't take action anyone should consider reasonable. I don't care if sex offenders are easy to trust or fool some people, Paterno was neglectful and bad things happened to kids because of it.
I'm just glad he lived long enough to see what his real legacy would be.
No one except experts who study child predators and abuse and say "Yes, it is very easy for people to dismiss allegations such as this for people they believe are 'good guys'". This is literally the worst goddamned attitude because you are fooling yourself into thinking you will be able to spot any potential situation because you're "better" than he was. The fact of the matter is that this should teach us to question everything and no one is infallible.
Right.
Which is why when you hear allegations like this, you make sure that experts on child predators and abuse find out about it.
You can't say Paterno didn't believe McQueary because he very clearly trusted him and his judgement. You can't say it was because Paterno was closer or trusted Sandusky more, unless you discount the credibility new report which distances their relationship. You can't discount the new report, because that's pretty much the only thing the pro-Paterno crowd has going for them.
In my eyes, at the absolute very least, Paterno was neglectful in making sure the proper authorities and individuals were notified. He was neglectful in making sure that this was properly investigated. He was neglectful in allowing Sandusky to have any association with his program pending him finding the outcome of the investigation.
No way does this look good for Paterno. He was neglectful and did things the easy way. He let it be someone else's problem and - at BEST and giving him the benefit of the doubt took the minimum possible amount of responsibility for what he was told.
Fuck Paterno. I understand why his wife and kids would back him (hell, I think Sandusky's wife still backs him) but fuck him and fuck the people who are going to twist everything to try and find a platform to defend him from.
He was investigated and cleared by the police before. He adopted six kids, and was a foster parent for even more. He founded a charity that worked with underprivileged kids and was cleared there as well. This wasn't Joe Schmo being an assistant coach for his sons soccer team. He was screened somewhere in the order of at least 10+ times by these experts (Once even in an actual criminal investigation) and cleared every time. But it's Penn State that ultimately failed here?
Hell, before Paterno even found out, Dranov (a doctor, and mandated reported, who had training covering identifying abuse in patients) questioned McQuery with his father and saw no reason to call the police based off of what McQuery said.
Experts had their chance and failed miserably time and time again (even during an actual police investigation.)
Because attitudes like yours do more to hurt potential future victims. That is why people "defend" him. This is something that goes on every day and affects hundreds to thousands of kids in this country, and a staggering majority of the cases are family and friends doing the abusing completely unnoticed because sitting a kid on your lap, or hugging him just a little too long are a lot less suspicious when it's Uncle Fred, and not Creepy Guy with a Pedo Stache.
That's a mother that had her son fondled in front of her, who was absolutely convinced that nothing had ever happened to the boy. If that can happen, how can we judge decisions made off second and third party accounts?
I know that abuse happens, and the main reason it happens with such frightening regularity is because people don't want to think about it...don't want to deal with it...don't want to deal with the consequences of addressing it. People like Joe Paterno who are more worried about how it will affect their image than the safety of kids. People who are more worried about how their spouse will react then the kid who is being victimized. People who are more worried about losing a friend for asking then what may actually be happening to the child.
I know more about people looking the other way then I'll ever discuss. I've also seen people who have the strength of character to refuse to look the other way and kept more children from being victimized. Those people who refused to look the other way shouldn't be the exception.
I haven't seen anything to indicate that McQueary was known to make things up, or even to exaggerate. Paterno was negligent - and every part of his 'do what's right' character was shown to be nothing more than an act - because he took the easy way out. He didn't do the hard thing when it mattered.
His only legacy deserves to be a warning to other people who might cover something like this up because they think it's the easy way out.
Except that no, studies show that these people by and large don't actually value their image over the children, it's that when a list of possible scenarios for actions occurring come up, "Longtime community Pillar is actually a serial pedophile" isn't anywhere near the top of the list. This is a case where Occam's Razor fails, because our initial gut reaction is to shrug it off and go with what you "know" about the person.
Besides the whole notion that Paterno had no reason to cover it up to "protect his image". He wasn't being accused, and he didn't even like Sandusky all that much because of how shitty he coached and recruited his last few years.
No, you should discuss it. I would be very interested in hearing much more about these people. It's all very educational and needs to be talked about more.
So you want us to believe that Paterno only became aware after Mcquery brought it to him? That the stalled investigations and sudden departure in the late 90's was not due to his child fondling ways? COME THE FUCK ON.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Which goes to show just how much you've followed what went on beyond quick snippets on ESPN and the like. Sandusky wasn't forced out due to the 98 investigation. The last few years his defenses were majorly under performing given the talent they had on them, and his recruiting had wound down because he was focusing on running the 2nd Mile. Now I get you didn't really follow PSU football back then, but him retiring wasn't a surprise for anyone that did, other than the fact that some people thought he would take over for Paterno when he retired. Paterno told him that wasn't happening in 98 (before the child abuse investigation).
Given the fact that several people testified under oath that Paterno never knew of the 98 investigation, that because of how the 98 investigation was handled, it would have been illegal for PSU staff to inform Paterno of it, and the fact that the Freeh report, which was so willing to jump to any number of other conclusions without factual basis, straight up said "Yeah, there's no reason to think that Paterno knew about 98, or was the reason Sandusky retired".
Yes. I do believe that it was not due to his child fondling ways. And apparently anyone who has done any investigative work at all into all of this feels the same way. So I'm not exactly sure what makes you so special.