PSU: About football or not?

[SarasotaPaul]

How do you know that? Have you discussed the case with Joe McGettigan?

I gather you are basing your legal conclusion on the e-mails that others issued that apparently make reference to Paterno. You are not basing that on any verbal statements or written statements made by Paterno that are inconsitent with his grand jury testimony.

It may very well be that Paterno lied to the Grand Jury, but you're making a lot of presumptions with very little fact to back up that possibility. Roger Clemens has shown us that it is not easy to convict somebody of perjury.

And lying to a grand jury does not involve a football operation. Moreover, McQueary was never charged with obstruction of justice or of lying to anybody - nobody has ever suggested that he engaged in any cover up. That's nonsense.

So, basically for you it comes down to the showers at Lasch. Suppose it had been a former BB coach in the showers at Lasch. Would the PSU BB team be subject to NCAA sanctions or would it be the FB team?

I know it feels right to point to the football program, but it is really a university issue, not a football issue.

You can't possibly be that (fill in the blank) can you? The whole stinking mess was about Joe Paterno (Head freaking football coach , you can digest that fact can't you?) protecting along with the head honchos what was going on at the football (there's that word you can't fathom again,...FOOT... freaking ..BALL) by an assistant , then ex-assisstant coach of ...hmmmm ...oh yeah...FOOTBALL. Sandusky was allowed by PENN ST football head coach to use facilities at the football complex and football bowl games to RAPE young men.

Sorry, I just re-read my rant and now see how pointing at PENN ST Football is so way off base. Geez...Logic is not really your strong suite is it?

 

[SarasotaPaul]

Again.. rocket science (fify)... If I rape children in the Carrier Dome.. Should SU pay for my actions?

Try this... no you should be reported and put into a pen with Bubba. Now if you worked for one to the coaches and he was told about it and he helped cover it up, then yes. How can this be so hard to understand?

 

[OrangePA]

Btw, after you re-read the report, find testimony in the Sandusky trial and you'll find testimony that was accepted about abuse on campus in 1995. Yes, 1995 while he was coaching. You'll also find in the report reference to Dick Anderson seeing him with boys in the shower.

Stop with the 2001 silliness.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Have you read the trial transcript?

How did you get it?

I do recall Anderson testifying that he saw Sandusky in the shower with kids. But I thought he indicated that it wss not unusual or inappropriate. I thought other coaches said pretty much the same thing. Dosent sound like cover up testimony to me.

 

[rrlbees]

Have you read the trial transcript?

How did you get it?

I do recall Anderson testifying that he saw Sandusky in the shower with kids. But I thought he indicated that it wss not unusual or inappropriate. I thought other coaches said pretty much the same thing. Dosent sound like cover up testimony to me.

Who said cover up testimony? Testimony that crimes took place. Go search 1995 too.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[RF2044]

You stated earlier that comparing this with Fine's case is apples and oranges. The only difference is that Boeheim didn't try to cover anything up. Fine had a sexual relationship with an underaged boy who was a ball boy for the basketball team and travelled with the team to games. How so different?

One key difference is that all of the above is merely your opinion, not a statement of fact.

 

[OrangePA]

Who said cover up testimony? Testimony that crimes took place. Go search 1995 too.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

So taking a shower in a large shower room with a kid is a crime?

Where do you come up with that?

When I was in Jr. HS our coaches showered with us all the time. That was a crime?

 

[OrangePA]

Try this... no you should be reported and put into a pen with Bubba. Now if you worked for one to the coaches and he was told about it and he helped cover it up, then yes. How can this be so hard to understand?

You mean used to work for the coach, right?

That makes a difference doesn't it?

 

[rrlbees]

So taking a shower in a large shower room with a kid is a crime?

Where do you come up with that?

When I was in Jr. HS our coaches showered with us all the time. That was a crime?

Take a neighbors 10 year old to the local gym with people around and shower. See if the cops get called and you get charged with endangering the welfare of a child. One is a team using the shower facilities, the other is an adult bringing 9, 10, 11 year old boys to the football facility and taking a shower with them. Sometimes for no reason.

Another thing I made up was the 1995 testimony. I didn't need to see the testimony since it was widely reported. Victim 7. Kid was molested, Sandusky used his status as coach to lure the kid to the football facilities and gave the kid tickets to home games. Even picking him up ans bringing him. But none of this started until 2001 right?

Here's just 1 article.

http://onwardstate.com/2012/06/13/victim-5-testifies-says-abuse-started-in-1995/

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[SarasotaPaul]

You mean used to work for the coach, right?

That makes a difference doesn't it?

That makes a difference doesn't it?[/quote]
No it doesn't. He was using your facilities and your program and he damn well knew it and did not do anything other than cover it up several times. I expect to see penn st fans trying to minimalize and excuse JoePa and the Penn St football program. I am dismayed to see some here not getting it.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

You mean used to work for the coach, right?

That makes a difference doesn't it?

You know, it doesn't matter if he never played football, coached football, worked for me or came from Mars. It happened in his arena, with his knowledge, and he allowed it to continue. It wasn't just one isolated occurrence that he never knew about.

 

[rrlbees]

Take a neighbors 10 year old to the local gym with people around and shower. See if the cops get called and you get charged with endangering the welfare of a child. One is a team using the shower facilities, the other is an adult bringing 9, 10, 11 year old boys to the football facility and taking a shower with them. Sometimes for no reason.

Another thing I made up was the 1995 testimony. I didn't need to see the testimony since it was widely reported. Victim 7. Kid was molested, Sandusky used his status as coach to lure the kid to the football facilities and gave the kid tickets to home games. Even picking him up ans bringing him. But none of this started until 2001 right?

Here's just 1 article.

http://onwardstate.com/2012/06/13/victim-5-testifies-says-abuse-started-in-1995/

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

And when you're done reading about 1995 you can the article below about the molestation in the mid-80's. Getting further ans further away from 2001 huh?

This one is about 1 of his "adopted" kids who started to bw abused in 1988 when he was 8. Sandusky again used 2nd mile and his status and fame as a PedSt coach to groom and molest the kid. Also remember, 4 months after being placed in Sandusky's home, the kid attempted suicide. His mother and others fought to get him removed from the home and placed somewhere else. The judge denied it. Wonder why? Because he is Jerry Sandusky, PedSt coach and hero. Translation...on the take and cover up.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ns-jerry-sandusky-adopted-son-talks-sex-abuse

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Townie72]

A quote from the McCann article on SI.com:

There has been much debate as to whether the NCAA should punish Penn State, but it is clearly authorized to do so and could even impose the "death penalty," whereby the Penn State football team would be shut down for at least one year. Articles 2.4 and 10.1 of the NCAA constitution command ethical conduct on behalf of coaches and others associated with athletic programs, and 2.4 expansively states, "These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."

This is the opinion of a law prof specializing in sports law. Notice the last sentence, which can make the entire "is it about football?" question (construed narrowly) moot.

Your questions about the application of these Bylaws in other situations are definitely a topic for discussion. I don't claim to be an expert on the history of NCAA investigations and sanctions, but the precedent seems to be that if you discover things and report them yourself, and don't establish a pattern of negligence or willful ignorance in letting things happen repeatedly, you get off free or with minimal sanction. The actions of a single bad actor don't constitute an Institutional problem, but the Institutional response can.

I would ask you a couple questions, before we start to drill down into hypotheticals of lesser scope (as this may well be a case of first impression):

Do you agree that the Bylaws in question establish jurisdiction in this case? If not, what scenario do you envision in which they would apply?

If you think they apply, do you think they should be enforced in this case?

The answer to your first question is "Probably not". I don't think they ever envisioned this kind of situation when that was written. I think they were thinking about "lying to recruits" level of activities. Not serious criminal behavior.

"These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."

Where is the line that demarcates the "activities affecting the athletics program?" What would you suggest? What sort of thing is clearly in? Clearly out?

Would it include Pitino bending that woman over that bar table for a little extra-martial hanky-panky?

Do you really want the NCAA to start making these kinds of decisions, conducting investigations, parceling out punishments? I'd say they were absolutely unprepared to do any of it.

People right now in a fit of righteous outrage seem to be looking for a way to punish Penn State. They have grasp upon the NCAA as a possible instrument. Bad idea. Bad precedent.

 

[SWC75]

The media seems to be splitting on the sanctions issue.
Some say it's not about the football, but rather the illegalities and unethical steps taken by university administrators. That the guilt, shame, and legal and civil penalties will be severe, hence no sanctions should be levied.

Others say the whole affair was ALL about BCS-level football, in general and at PSU----a culture that fosters covering up, fear of reporting, and thrying to avert bad publicity because of how it might affect recruiting or the legacies of iconic football coaches---and hence there needs to be the heaviest of NCAA sanctions. They feel it's necessary for a bold NCAA intervention/stroke/message that will truly rein in the growing autonomy, power, mischief, and self-interest within the BCS football system and culture.

As for me, I'm saying it was all about football, and that a death penalty for 3-5 years is in order---as long as the NCAA takes all steps to allow for easy transfers and immediate play time for current players at their new schools.

To me, it's all aobut who is being punished. A shut down of the program hurts:
1) The current players, who could transfer to another school but is that a neutral event in their lives?
2) The current coaching staff who, (I presume) had nothing to do with this.
3) The fans, who rooted for a football team to win, not for chidlren to be raped.

Paterno is dead, Sandusky in jail, probably for the rest of his life and the other guys have been fired. To me it would make much more sense to have 10% of the receipts from Penn State gaems go to organziations advocating for children. Punishing people who didn't do anything wrong has never made any sense to me.

 

[Crusty]

To me, it's all aobut who is being punished. A shut down of the program hurts:
1) The current players, who could transfer to another school but is that a neutral event in their lives?
2) The current coaching staff who, (I presume) had nothing to do with this.
3) The fans, who rooted for a football team to win, not for chidlren to be raped.

Paterno is dead, Sandusky in jail, probably for the rest of his life and the other guys have been fired. To me it would make much more sense to have 10% of the receipts from Penn State gaems go to organziations advocating for children. Punishing people who didn't do anything wrong has never made any sense to me.

So, in your opinion it is just business as usual?
How are those issues any different than any school that has been severely sanctioned?
What you propose is a double standard in favor of the perpetrator of the most horrific scandal in college sports history.

 

[rrlbees]

The answer to your first question is "Probably not". I don't think they ever envisioned this kind of situation when that was written. I think they were thinking about "lying to recruits" level of activities. Not serious criminal behavior.

"These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."

Where is the line that demarcates the "activities affecting the athletics program?" What would you suggest? What sort of thing is clearly in? Clearly out?

Would it include Pitino bending that woman over that bar table for a little extra-martial hanky-panky?

Do you really want the NCAA to start making these kinds of decisions, conducting investigations, parceling out punishments? I'd say they were absolutely unprepared to do any of it.

People right now in a fit of righteous outrage seem to be looking for a way to punish Penn State. They have grasp upon the NCAA as a possible instrument. Bad idea. Bad precedent.

You're talking about the gray area, the fine line. This is so far to one side you don't have to worry about the fine line.

As to righteous outrage. That's what the PedSt apologists are calling it too.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[rrlbees]

To me, it's all aobut who is being punished. A shut down of the program hurts:
1) The current players, who could transfer to another school but is that a neutral event in their lives?
2) The current coaching staff who, (I presume) had nothing to do with this.
3) The fans, who rooted for a football team to win, not for chidlren to be raped.

Gee, you could say those things about most of the penalties the NCAA levies, especially 1&3 but often 2 also.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OrangeHeel]

Again.. rocket science (fify)... If I rape children in the Carrier Dome.. Should SU pay for my actions?

If SU knew you were a child abuser, let you continue to be associated with the program, and let you attend games, then unequivocally "Yes".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OrangePA]

That makes a difference doesn't it?

No it doesn't. He was using your facilities and your program and he damn well knew it and did not do anything other than cover it up several times. I expect to see penn st fans trying to minimalize and excuse JoePa and the Penn St football program. I am dismayed to see some here not getting it.[/quote]


No. I don't think you get it.

I for one am not defending anybody.

My point is that the notion that this was a "football program issue" that should prompt severe penalites on the football program is misguided.

This was an institutional problem that had some connection to the football program but was actually much bigger than that.

The individuals who decided not to report the 2001 incident were not members of the football program. They were administrators who apparently took into consideration what Joe Paterno had to say if one reads the reports of the e-mails that way.

My only point is that the real culprits in 2001 were the AD, the VP and the President of the school who at best deferred to the football coach and who at worst shirked their ultimate responsibilities.

They had the authority and the responsibility.

The entire Athletic Department and the school should be subject to some form of discipine perhaps but the football program should not be singled out or given the death penalty.

 

[OrangePA]

There is some good stuff in this thread. Summarizing;

You have to be a lawyer to be able to read and have some common sense.

If you don't get caught or turned in for committing a crime, the crime didn't happen.

Covering up a crime is not a crime.

Not reporting child molestation to the proper authorities is not a crime.

Enambling a child molester is not a crime.


If I was doing 75 in a 55 and a cop pulled me over and said "Hey it's Bee's, how ya doing?" and lets me go, it doesn't mean I wasn't speeding.

This is a very interesting post.

The message is that one need not be a lawyer to better understand and address this very legal situation.

In other words - and as I say this I have not pretense to being a particularly good lawyer - I'm probably very, very average in that regard - three years of formal legal education, studying for the bar exam and practicing law for nearly twenty-eight years affords no better perspective or no better understanding than what you have regarding the Sandusky situation.

I can't agree with that. I'm no genius and I'm not a great lawyer, but gosh I have been doing this kind of stuff for a very long time. It's how I try to make a living.

And you can't even afford me or anybody with my general background any level of deference.

I guess I should not be surprised. This board is all about a bunch of us who know nothing about football trying to critique the work of guys who have spent their lives playing and coaching the game and who do it on a daily basis for a living.

As I promised, I will re-read the entire report - I have read much of it - and will not comment further until I have done so.

 

[rrlbees]

This is a very interesting post.

The message is that one need not be a lawyer to better understand and address this very legal situation.

In other words - and as I say this I have not pretense to being a particularly good lawyer - I'm probably very, very average in that regard - three years of formal legal education, studying for the bar exam and practicing law for nearly twenty-eight years affords no better perspective or no better understanding than what you have regarding the Sandusky situation.

I can't agree with that. I'm no genius and I'm not a great lawyer, but gosh I have been doing this kind of stuff for a very long time. It's how I try to make a living.

And you can't even afford me or anybody with my general background any level of deference.

I guess I should not be surprised. This board is all about a bunch of us who know nothing about football trying to critique the work of guys who have spent their lives playing and coaching the game and who do it on a daily basis for a living.

As I promised, I will re-read the entire report - I have read much of it - and will not comment further until I have done so.

Point is, you don't need yo be a lawyer to be able to read and understand. Don't forget to read about victim 7 that I linked and the abuse in 95 when he was a coach. Or the article about abuse in 88/89.

Let me know when you're done because I have more for you. Including about why your boy Seasock was asked to do an eval and other shady characters that allowed 98 to go unprosecuted, thus many other boys to be raped.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[javadoc]

This is a very interesting post.

The message is that one need not be a lawyer to better understand and address this very legal situation.

What about the comments from Mike McCann in his article on SI.com? He is a Professor of Law and states that the NCAA has jurisdiction, etc. Is he wrong? How is his understanding different than yours?

 

[longtimefan]

I will re-read the report. I think that's a good idea. I read much of it the day it was published. I do not recall the report indicating that it was Joe Paterno's idea to commence a cover up.

The fact is that Joe Paterno was never charged with a crime.

And, no member of the football staff was charged with a crime. Only two University administrators, and a former football coach who by 2001 had been retired for three years, were charged with crimes. Nobody has been charged with obstruction of justice - only lying to the Grand Jury.

Lack of empathy is a bad thing. I wish more people had empathy.

But lack of empathy is not a crime and not a basis for NCAA sanctions.

I know you want this to be about the football program, but it really wasn't. It was about a twisted man who was a former coach, and few members of the PSU administration that handled a bad situation involving the former employee very, very badly.

Is it not possible that more charges will be forthcoming?

And, Paterno would have been likely been charged for his testimony before the grand jury.

 

[NKR1978]

If SU knew you were a child abuser, let you continue to be associated with the program, and let you attend games, then unequivocally "Yes".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Penn state went so far beyond that. But yes, we would deserve to be shut down in that instance.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[baggerbob]

If the person McQueary had seen in the shower, was an associate professor of History,Mathmatics,Philosophy or anyone else but sandusky, he probably would have gone to police after stopping him. This was a football problem and only a football problem, people can come up with all sorts of legal terms, but it was because of football that Joe let it go on.

 

[BlackKnight76]

It was a former football coach (and at the time of some acts, quite possibly a current football coach) who committed the crimes on football trips and in the football facilities. He was caught by another assistant football coach. It was covered up by Joe Paterno, who as football coach, was the most powerful man at the university. The cover up was in order to protect the sanctity of the football program, which as we all know, is the lifeblood of Penn State University despite the fact that it is a very good school in its own right. If not for the obsessive, cult like culture surrounding Penn State football, this is never covered up. If Sandusky was a 30 year employee or associate of ANY other part of Penn State, whether he was a professor, President, Board of Trustee member, whatever, and he was caught on multiple occasions I don't think there's any chance that he's not in jail by 1999 at the latest.

It's a football issue.