The Shady to Tennessee thread (it was fun while it lasted)...

[NKR1978]

Of course your view couldn't possibly be tainted by the fact you've spewed venom against RU and Schiano for years, right?

Rutgers/Schiano is a strange cause to defend. There are countless articles and anecdotes documenting Schiano's scumbagness.

 

[sufandu]

Awesome. It's what a lot of UT fans have clamored for for years anyway. They deserve it.

 

[DeGrozz]

this isn't even close to being true and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of this type of crime, how it came about, and how it was allowed to fester. I'll just ask - do you think anyone (outside of Sandusky himself) knows exactly how many victims there were? How extensive the damage was? The nature of long term predatory child s e xual abuse is such that this is probably the most poorly understood major crime story in sports history.

I do child abuse and neglect cases for a living. I see awful things that would make you want to blind yourself, and I've sorted through false accusations and/or had findings overturned. This kind of thing isn't new to me. I don't have the time or inclination to explain how things work to the wannabe message board lawyers out there with their supposed gotcha logical points (i.e. if it were true why wasn't Schiano sued or prosecuted).

Is there a legit point to make about hearsay? Absolutely. Is the statement by McQueary iron clad proof? Of course not. It is most definitely hearsay. However, just because something is hearsay doesn't automatically make it untrue. Would it be admissible in court? Nope. But this isn't court. As with anything else, you examine a statement in context and assess its credibility. This message board believes as true TONS of things that are hearsay.

It is perfectly defensible to conclude that hearsay of this sort is such that one isn't comfortable drawing conclusions. I respect that position and a reasonable mind can conclude such.
It is also perfectly defensible to examine McQueary's statement in the deposition that Bradley told him Schiano came forward and conclude that given the circumstances, McQueary was telling the truth. That Bradley did say that, and if Bradley said that at the time it was probably true (why would Bradley make something like that up?) Given that we know Sandusky was a serial predator and had no qualms about bringing children in the football facilities/locker rooms and s e xually molesting them, it isn't a stretch that another Penn State coach saw a situation similar to what McQueary saw. Does this position require more of a willingness to read between lines and speculate? Absolutely. It wouldn't and shouldn't be enough to convict under the law. But in forming an opinion? Based on my experience, I absolutely believe that Bradley told McQueary that Schiano had walked in on Sandusky abusing a child.

My issue isn't so much that one believe a version over the other. As I said, I believe reasonable minds can differ there. I object to the condescending attitude by some in this thread as if believing hearsay is some kind of ridiculous thing and there is no way any of it could be true.

How can you say that it is categorically false that this was one of the heaviest covered stories in sports history? There were investigations at the state and federal level, by the former Director of the FBI, and some of the finest journalists in the nation. It was probably the biggest news story of 2011. It's true that not everything done was done perfectly in those investigations, but just because we do not know every fact about the case does not mean that statement is 'categorically false'.

I understand that a statement being 'hearsay' does not make it false. But people misspeak. People misremember. People say false things just because they don't like jackwads like Greg Schiano. I believe if you are going to condemn a man hearsay needs to do more than just fit a narrative. And with all the stories, all the reports, all the leaks, all the internet sleuths -- everything -- there is nothing more than two sentences of hearsay that I have seen linking Schiano to the case. I believe if you are going to condemn a man, blacklist him from his profession, and drag his name through the mud, you better have more to go on than that.

There very well may be information out there that will make me change my mind, but as of now, I just haven't seen it.

 

[bpo57]

What would you charge him with? Was McQueary ever charged with anything? So the story goes, they each saw something, and reported it to a superior.

Either McQueary is lying (why, I have no idea) or Bradley is lying.

Doesn't really matter, but if I were the one hiring a head coach, he wouldn't have any ties to the Sandusky days at Penn State.

That seems to paint with an awfully broad brush. I'm sure there were several people that knew and several that had no idea. What irks me is the phony rationale employed by UT boosters, fans, etc. They could care less about the PSU scandal. They didn't want him as their head coach because he was beneath their mighty program from a coaching standpoint.

 

[bpo57]

Rutgers/Schiano is a strange cause to defend. There are countless articles and anecdotes documenting Schiano's scumbagness.

Speaking of strange that's a very interesting comment coming from a guy with as many liberal views as you hold.

 

[bpo57]

How can you say that it is categorically false that this was one of the heaviest covered stories in sports history? There were investigations at the state and federal level, by the former Director of the FBI, and some of the finest journalists in the nation. It was probably the biggest news story of 2011. It's true that not everything done was done perfectly in those investigations, but just because we do not know every fact about the case does not mean that statement is 'categorically false'.

I understand that a statement being 'hearsay' does not make it false. But people misspeak. People misremember. People say false things just because they don't like jackwads like Greg Schiano. I believe if you are going to condemn a man hearsay needs to do more than just fit a narrative. And with all the stories, all the reports, all the leaks, all the internet sleuths -- everything -- there is nothing more than two sentences of hearsay that I have seen linking Schiano to the case. I believe if you are going to condemn a man, blacklist him from his profession, and drag his name through the mud, you better have more to go on than that.

There very well may be information out there that will make me change my mind, but as of now, I just haven't seen it.

Well stated. I just wish some of these guys were around to serve on the OJ jury.

 

[NKR1978]

Speaking of strange that's a very interesting comment coming from a guy with as many liberal views as you hold.

I didn’t realize that thinking Schiano is a scumbag is a liberal view.

 

[Chip]

That seems to paint with an awfully broad brush. I'm sure there were several people that knew and several that had no idea. What irks me is the phony rationale employed by UT boosters, fans, etc. They could care less about the PSU scandal. They didn't want him as their head coach because he was beneath their mighty program from a coaching standpoint.

Again, you should probably blame the Washington Post (I was wrong when I said NYT) more than UT fans. One guy is lying and one isn’t.

UT fans are nuts and it’s probably going to haunt them trying to find someone to take the job.

But it’s not like they invented the Schiano story just by association because he worked there at that time.

Everyone seems to be picking a side, either UT fans or Schiano.

It’s possible there are two losers in this game.

 

[bpo57]

Again, you should probably blame the Washington Post (I was wrong when I said NYT) more than UT fans. One guy is lying and one isn’t.

UT fans are nuts and it’s probably going to haunt them trying to find someone to take the job.

But it’s not like they invented the Schiano story just by association because he worked there at that time.

Everyone seems to be picking a side, either UT fans or Schiano.

It’s possible there are two losers in this game.

Oh there def are two losers. Little doubt in my mind about that. The question is whether one is deserved.

 

[bpo57]

I didn’t realize that thinking Schiano is a scumbag is a liberal view.

Your attitude is why I know I'm on the right path. You can think Schiano is a scumbag all u want. That's not why I am criticizing you. It's the willingness to believe very serious allegations with such little proof.

Unlike many here, I have no idea whether Schiano did anything wrong or not re the PSU scandal. But it's very clear that most (not all) here who believe he did something wrong also intensely dislike Schiano and are very obviously biased. Like yourself for instance.

One thing that's amusing about this board tho is the consistent willingness to believe anything about their team's coach but then defend "our guy(s)" to the death when any allegations are made against them.

 

[Briancuse]

Your attitude is why I know I'm on the right path. You can think Schiano is a scumbag all u want. That's not why I am criticizing you. It's the willingness to believe very serious allegations with such little proof.

Unlike many here, I have no idea whether Schiano did anything wrong or not re the PSU scandal. But it's very clear that most (not all) here who believe he did something wrong also intensely dislike Schiano and are very obviously biased. Like yourself for instance.

One thing that's amusing about this board tho is the consistent willingness to believe anything about their team's coach but then defend "our guy(s)" to the death when any allegations are made against them.

Schiano is a shady character and a mediocre coach, but your right I cant link him to the Psu scandal based on third person hearsay, he doesn't deserve that.

 

[TheCusian]

How can you say that it is categorically false that this was one of the heaviest covered stories in sports history? There were investigations at the state and federal level, by the former Director of the FBI, and some of the finest journalists in the nation. It was probably the biggest news story of 2011. It's true that not everything done was done perfectly in those investigations, but just because we do not know every fact about the case does not mean that statement is 'categorically false'.

I understand that a statement being 'hearsay' does not make it false. But people misspeak. People misremember. People say false things just because they don't like jackwads like Greg Schiano. I believe if you are going to condemn a man hearsay needs to do more than just fit a narrative. And with all the stories, all the reports, all the leaks, all the internet sleuths -- everything -- there is nothing more than two sentences of hearsay that I have seen linking Schiano to the case. I believe if you are going to condemn a man, blacklist him from his profession, and drag his name through the mud, you better have more to go on than that.

There very well may be information out there that will make me change my mind, but as of now, I just haven't seen it.

I just keep coming back to why his name would even come up.

Sometimes when you lie with the dogs, etc etc. The media does due diligence, the justice system has due process. Everyone else can form opinions with less proof. That’s a part of Sandusky’s actions and the coverup getting people dirty. JoPa is dead and Sandusky is in prison. But this stuff ripples out.

It is a part of the price for not speaking out and doing right earlier.

 

[NKR1978]

Your attitude is why I know I'm on the right path. You can think Schiano is a scumbag all u want. That's not why I am criticizing you. It's the willingness to believe very serious allegations with such little proof.

Unlike many here, I have no idea whether Schiano did anything wrong or not re the PSU scandal. But it's very clear that most (not all) here who believe he did something wrong also intensely dislike Schiano and are very obviously biased. Like yourself for instance.

One thing that's amusing about this board tho is the consistent willingness to believe anything about their team's coach but then defend "our guy(s)" to the death when any allegations are made against them.

You can have custody of Schiano and Penn State. It’s all good. I’m not offended.

Sandusky was brazen enough to bring boys to bowl games. He was brazen enough to rape one in the lockerroom. I’m 100% confident that every adult involved with that sick program in the 90’s knew what was happening and they either didn’t care or turned a blind eye.

 

[cuseincincy]

Oh there def are two losers. Little doubt in my mind about that. The question is whether one is deserved.

If Schiano is not going to become the UT football coach then I don't think you can really call the UT fans losers in this (except maybe literally). The media conjecture is a bunch of crap. UT will have no problem getting someone to accept an SEC head coaching job. And despite the administrative mess it appears to be UT has great facilities in one of college football's best environments. It was a little silly of them to think they could get Gruden and their biggest problem may be the AD that is making the decision is the same person that somehow thought Schiano would be a good hire in the first place. Art Briles and Hugh Freeze are still available.

 

[rrlbees]

On hearsay from a guy (Bradley) that now denies he ever said it.

So you and Bradley claim mcquery lied under oath.

 

[rrlbees]

Of course your view couldn't possibly be tainted by the fact you've spewed venom against RU and Schiano for years, right?

I think I was talking about the trustee. So you’re backing the words of a guy that claims nobody knew anything over 20 years of child rape in a football lockeroom. Great take on your part.

 

[AZOrange]

It's believe Tom Bradley via McQuery. It's two levels of hearsay. That's quite the game that passed an Ohio St smell test. They had nothing to gain adding him to their superstar star under Urban Meyer and did it anyway and got 0 complaints about it.

Like McQueary is some saint here. He’s a POS too that was motivated to implicate others.

 

[TheCusian]

Like McQueary is some saint here. He’s a POS too that was motivated to implicate others.

Catch me up. Why was he motivated to implicate others?

 

[cuseincincy]

Catch me up. Why was he motivated to implicate others?

He was fired and filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the university claiming he was fired because he was a whistleblower. "Whistleblower of what"? is the question that started everything else. Before that it had only been reported within the university. That's my somewhat removed recollection. He sued for $4Million, was awarded $7.3M and then another $5M for whistleblower status. So I would say he was well motivated. That doesn't mean he lied under oath like others did.

 

[AZOrange]

Catch me up. Why was he motivated to implicate others?

Because if he doesn’t implicate someone else it’s basically him and JoePa that knew and didn’t protect kids.

Doesn’t anyone else find it odd that he never mentioned this is any of the investigation, depos, trials and it comes up in 2016 as part of some insurance litigation.

And all the hundreds of people interviewed and deposed and who provided testimony over the last 6 or so years and not once was Schiano called?

I’m all for belittling Schiano for his no-nothing approach to football, but saying he knew about child abuse (and did nothing) based on POS Mcquerys testimony is beyond the pale.

 

[OrangeDW]

Again, you should probably blame the Washington Post (I was wrong when I said NYT) more than UT fans. One guy is lying and one isn’t.

UT fans are nuts and it’s probably going to haunt them trying to find someone to take the job.

But it’s not like they invented the Schiano story just by association because he worked there at that time.

Everyone seems to be picking a side, either UT fans or Schiano.

It’s possible there are two losers in this game.

Yes, this. There have been two losers the whole time, and that’s what has made this so enjoyable. Everyone involved with this sucks, and has looked bad at every turn.

 

[leftytg]

How can you say that it is categorically false that this was one of the heaviest covered stories in sports history? There were investigations at the state and federal level, by the former Director of the FBI, and some of the finest journalists in the nation. It was probably the biggest news story of 2011. It's true that not everything done was done perfectly in those investigations, but just because we do not know every fact about the case does not mean that statement is 'categorically false'.

I understand that a statement being 'hearsay' does not make it false. But people misspeak. People misremember. People say false things just because they don't like jackwads like Greg Schiano. I believe if you are going to condemn a man hearsay needs to do more than just fit a narrative. And with all the stories, all the reports, all the leaks, all the internet sleuths -- everything -- there is nothing more than two sentences of hearsay that I have seen linking Schiano to the case. I believe if you are going to condemn a man, blacklist him from his profession, and drag his name through the mud, you better have more to go on than that.

There very well may be information out there that will make me change my mind, but as of now, I just haven't seen it.

As to your first paragraph:

I bolded and responded to a particular quote of yours. You wrote, "Sandusky's crimes have probably been looked at by law enforcement, private investigators, and investigative journalists more than any sports story in history". You wrote this as support for your position that this matter has been exhaustively investigated and, given that despite this deep and widespread investigation by so many, the lack of evidence against Schiano beyond a hearsay statement points to the unreliability of the statement. I will say again, the notion that Sandusky's crimes have been investigated more than any other sports story is objectively categorically false.

I tried to illustrate this to you, but you ignored the question. The absolute most basic level, for Sandusky's crimes to be as deeply investigated they have to be known. So I ask again - how many victims were there? Who was the first? Who was the last? I'll save the suspense - you don't know. Nobody knows, outside of Sandusky himself.

It is beyond dispute that this crime and cover up were huge stories back in 2011. That doesn't mean they were well investigated, and when I say they weren't well investigated I don't mean incompetence. They weren't well investigated because there was a limited scope. If memory serves, in the sum total of all indictments against Sandusky there were 10 victims listed. Statistically, the average pedophile molests approximately 260 children in a lifetime. Given the fact that Sandusky (with Penn State's blessing) established A FREAKING CHARITY FOR TROUBLED YOUTH (i.e. perfect grooming targets), I'd wager anything his number is much, much, much higher. This isn't even considering the fact that he adopted 6 children, fostered more, and one of his adopted sons accused Sandusky of sexual molesting him (this charge has not been investigated).

The state investigation was limited in scope to ten known victims. The federal investigation was even more limited, as their jurisdiction is limited to bowl games and other activities that might have crossed state lines. To my knowledge there have been no federal charges and it doesn't appear that many federal resources were given to the investigation, as it was mostly a state law matter. The Freeh investigation had no subpoena power and there is no penalty for lying to non law enforcement entities. The report is of limited value.

Beyond that, there are other reasons why this case is hard to investigate. For one, the investigation began by the Pennsylvania AG's office in 2008. Sandusky stated The Second Mile in 1977. One victim alleged he told Paterno about an incident in the bathroom in 1971. The indictment covered particular allegations again a victim starting in 1994. It is hard to investigate old crimes. Beyond that, child sex crimes are among the hardest to get victims to speak up. This is especially true in the sick cellpool known as State College, where the cult of Penn State Football makes speaking out against anyone associated with the program dangerous (look up what happened to the first kid who spoke up - he got driven out of his high school.) The victims were disproportionately underprivileged and vulnerable and were violated by a powerful man in a confusing time, and violated in such a way that many blame themselves, or question their own sexuality, and feel great guilt and shame and over time come to deeply bury what happened. The vast majority of these people stay quiet, for reasons that are entirely understandable. I applaud the ones that do speak up and come forward.

So I reiterate - the notion that somehow as a result of a state, federal, and Freeh investigation that Sandusky's crimes have been looked at more than any other in sports history is absurd. I'd argue almost the exact opposite - that despite the best efforts of numerous investigators and journalists, because of the scope and breadth of Sandusky's crimes and the dynamics of child sex abuse, Sandusky's crimes are still poorly known and understood.

As to your second paragraph - I have no quarrel with that. It is a perfectly reasonable take. I disagree with it for various reasons related to the particulars of this case, but I respect it.

 

[Cuseregular]

As to your first paragraph:

I bolded and responded to a particular quote of yours. You wrote, "Sandusky's crimes have probably been looked at by law enforcement, private investigators, and investigative journalists more than any sports story in history". You wrote this as support for your position that this matter has been exhaustively investigated and, given that despite this deep and widespread investigation by so many, the lack of evidence against Schiano beyond a hearsay statement points to the unreliability of the statement. I will say again, the notion that Sandusky's crimes have been investigated more than any other sports story is objectively categorically false.

I tried to illustrate this to you, but you ignored the question. The absolute most basic level, for Sandusky's crimes to be as deeply investigated they have to be known. So I ask again - how many victims were there? Who was the first? Who was the last? I'll save the suspense - you don't know. Nobody knows, outside of Sandusky himself.

It is beyond dispute that this crime and cover up were huge stories back in 2011. That doesn't mean they were well investigated, and when I say they weren't well investigated I don't mean incompetence. They weren't well investigated because there was a limited scope. If memory serves, in the sum total of all indictments against Sandusky there were 10 victims listed. Statistically, the average pedophile molests approximately 260 children in a lifetime. Given the fact that Sandusky (with Penn State's blessing) established A FREAKING CHARITY FOR TROUBLED YOUTH (i.e. perfect grooming targets), I'd wager anything his number is much, much, much higher. This isn't even considering the fact that he adopted 6 children, fostered more, and one of his adopted sons accused Sandusky of s e xual molesting him (this charge has not been investigated).

The state investigation was limited in scope to ten known victims. The federal investigation was even more limited, as their jurisdiction is limited to bowl games and other activities that might have crossed state lines. To my knowledge there have been no federal charges and it doesn't appear that many federal resources were given to the investigation, as it was mostly a state law matter. The Freeh investigation had no subpoena power and there is no penalty for lying to non law enforcement entities. The report is of limited value.

Beyond that, there are other reasons why this case is hard to investigate. For one, the investigation began by the Pennsylvania AG's office in 2008. Sandusky stated The Second Mile in 1977. One victim alleged he told Paterno about an incident in the bathroom in 1971. The indictment covered particular allegations again a victim starting in 1994. It is hard to investigate old crimes. Beyond that, child s e x crimes are among the hardest to get victims to speak up. This is especially true in the sick cellpool known as State College, where the cult of Penn State Football makes speaking out against anyone associated with the program dangerous (look up what happened to the first kid who spoke up - he got driven out of his high school.) The victims were disproportionately underprivileged and vulnerable and were violated by a powerful man in a confusing time, and violated in such a way that many blame themselves, or question their own s e xuality, and feel great guilt and shame and over time come to deeply bury what happened. The vast majority of these people stay quiet, for reasons that are entirely understandable. I applaud the ones that do speak up and come forward.

So I reiterate - the notion that somehow as a result of a state, federal, and Freeh investigation that Sandusky's crimes have been looked at more than any other in sports history is absurd. I'd argue almost the exact opposite - that despite the best efforts of numerous investigators and journalists, because of the scope and breadth of Sandusky's crimes and the dynamics of child s e x abuse, Sandusky's crimes are still poorly known and understood.

As to your second paragraph - I have no quarrel with that. It is a perfectly reasonable take. I disagree with it for various reasons related to the particulars of this case, but I respect it.

Man alive, great post. How and why anyone on a syracuse message board doubts the validity and reality of any of this is beyond my comprehension. Well done in this thread.

Seems a good time and place to repost this:

 

[Stern]

 

[Moontan]

Somewhere else I read that they’d contacted Mike “I’m a man!” Gundy.