Old Penn State Hash

[hawkeyebob62]

Billso

I get the whole due process, credible evidence, everybody gets their day in court, innocent until proven guilty thing and that people should not be convicted without solid, credible, provable evidence, nor be swept away by a tide of revenge, outrage and irrational emotion, but I wonder about the vigor that you put into your defense of the Penn State apologist side of this.

Sandusky has been convicted 45 times over by a jury of his peers, so we know that he was not being falsely accused.

I don't know of hardly anybody that is denying that SOMEONE with some sort of standing within the Penn State hierarchy knew that Sandusky was an active pedophile as far back as 1998, certainly by 2001.

And yet Sandusky was able to roam free and unfettered through the halls of Penn State until November of 2011. Heck, he still had his key to the PSU athletic facility WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED!!!

Whatever the Freeh report states or doesn't state, proves or disproves Penn State undeniably knew Sandusky was a pedophile and did NOTHING for at LEAST 10 years to stop him, or even slow him down!

This forum is not a court of law and as such doesn't have the burden of having incorruptible evidence that proves guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are free to use our (admittedly) very subjective BS detectors and cut through the usual red tape of a formal legal proceeding and surmise what probably went on and form opinions (again admittedly) to varying degrees based on emotion as well as logic and reason.

What I don't understand is if you really think Penn State is getting such a raw deal or are you just being a stickler for formality and the legal standards of evidence or are you just enjoying being a contrarian?

I don't know. Everybody deserves a vigorous and competent defense, but with what we know about this case and what seems to be quite undeniable about it, I don't see how defending PSU right now is something you'd want to put such devotion into.

For the most part, an excellent post. When you say you everybody deserves a vigorous defense, but "qualify" PSU because of the situation, THAT is where some may disagree.

I think there are too many here that think ANYthing said to "support" PSU=support for Sandusky/pedophilia/cover-up. That is simply wrong.

What I DO fear is an emboldened--coupled with partiality/bias/favoritism toward certain schools--NCAA or vigilante committees. Nobody seems to have a problem with Donna Shalala serving on these committees, yet Miami/FL MAY be getting ever deeper into their current "scandal". Worse, since certain allegations have been made, NO follow-up investigation has been done. How the he&& does THAT happen?! And given Miami's continued abuses over the last 25-30 years, how is "death penalty" not mentioned in the same breath as "Miami of Florida"?

How many times does USC have to screw up before people are willing to admit "culture" at USC is never going to change?

But PSU has, for all intents and purposes, ONE "scandal" (albeit, disgustting, and APPARENTLY ongoing), and a committee of 18 people not only demand death penalty, but tie strings to "non"-death penalty that renders the PSU president between a literal rock and hard place.

NObody denies PSU needed to be punished/addressed/dealt with. What SOME may question is the "method" employed by the NCAA, or that select few within the NCAA who have decided to hold sway.

I don't care about, or "fear", what will happen to PSU. What I DO fear, greatly, is the prospect of a University of Iowa that is 1/4 to 1/3 the size of PSU some day being dealt with in a similar manner. (Read some definitive history books and how the Big Ten has dealt with Iowa over the years if you believe it would "never" happen). I don't like the idea of Ohio State, USC, Miami/FL or some other REPEATEDLY CORRUPT school sitting in judgment. Can you imagine how vindictive an Illinois might be? Or does it appeal to anyone to have a Gene Smith weighing in?

The issue isn't necessarily the "the sanctions". But if you can let "severity" or "nature" of infractions sway you to decide no "process" is needed, or that "process/protocol" can be thrown aside, even on a "just-this-once" assumption, we, collectively, deserve the eventual fate when that "just-this-once" becomes either the "norm", or worse, is used "selectively".

 

[Scorpio79]

too many quotation marks, didn't read LOL

 

[hawkdrummer1]

The retirement conversations began prior to the 1998 incident. But in your view, what should Joe have done in 1998 after Sandusky was cleared?

Many of us manage others, so I think it's a useful question to consider for our own work lives.

Point taken Billso. In the absence of first-hand knowledge and deeper facts... my feelings on this revolve around the basic idea that Paterno was all knowing (as in knew everything that happened on his campus) and all-powerful. (as in, he couldn't get pushed around by the admins).

I find it hard to believe he knew nothing. And that's the only way he escapes on this one.

 

[Billso]

Billso, what exactly is it again that you are arguing for?

For people to care about the truth.

And for people to stop deluding themselves that "it couldn't happen here". That's what we thought at my high school. And I guarantee you that's what every PSU fan thought about PSU - until it happened.

 

[Billso]

Point taken Billso. In the absence of first-hand knowledge and deeper facts... my feelings on this revolve around the basic idea that Paterno was all knowing (as in knew everything that happened on his campus) and all-powerful. (as in, he couldn't get pushed around by the admins).

Which the Freeh report plainly refutes. After 430 interviews and 3 million+ emails, are you aware the ENTIRE evidence of Paterno's communication with officials is comprised of 3 third-party emails, one of which ("Coach is anxious to know where it stands") more likely refers to Sandusky? It's very clear, if you actually read the report, that Curley/Schulz kept their info very close, and away from both Paterno and Spanier.

Don't take my word for it. Read the report. Virtually no one has.

I find it hard to believe he knew nothing. And that's the only way he escapes on this one.

Who said he "knew nothing" or that he should "escape"? Not me. How many times do I have to say it: his great failure was not following up after the 2001 incident, to ensure Schulz+Curley did their freakin' jobs. How many times do I have to say it: PSU deserves the harsh sanctions. That said, I don't think for a minute that Joe Paterno "knowingly protected a child rapist" anymore than Hayden Fry would have. Far more likely he figured the authorities investigated and either found McQueary to have been wrong or somehow "solved Jerry's problem", a sad misconception many older people have about pedophilia/pederasty. But I save my greatest scorn, by far, for the people at TSM, DPW and the police who were PROFESSIONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILDREN'S SAFETY who fell down on their jobs in 1998 and 2001 and beyond.

Late word is that the Fed's investigation of TSM, which now involves both FBI and Postal Inspector's office, should bear fruit within the next month. It is very hot news in PA right now, as some of Governor Corbett's biggest donors were TSM board members, and he was AG in charge of the investigation when he ran for Governor.

 

[Scorpio79]

^ mesaclown in drag ^

 

[UP6936]

For people to care about the truth.

And for people to stop deluding themselves that "it couldn't happen here". That's what we thought at my high school. And I guarantee you that's what every PSU fan thought about PSU - until it happened.

I certainly care about the truth. If you say there is little to no direct evidence, so far, that supports the notion that Joe Pa was involved in the aiding/abetting/cover up, I suppose I will have to believe you, because I have no desire to read the Freeh report. I don't have the time, patience or stomach for it.

That said, granting that I have no "courtroom quality" evidence to support it, it is my own prerogative to believe what I want to believe. I am an intelligent, college educated adult with four decades of life experience to draw upon and it just simply strains credulity for me to believe that Joe Pa wasn't culpable in this. Was he a old doddering figurehead? Or the Godfather of State College, PA? I don't know. Most likely somewhere in between, I suspect closer to Godfather than figurehead, as well-intentioned, benevolent and grandfatherly as he might have been.

Maybe he had little to do with on-field football operations any more, but he still ran the team, was the leader and had tremendous sway in the university and community. In my personal, unsubstantiated opinion, he had to have known. If I was on a jury deciding on whether to convict him of it, right now I would have to vote to acquit, but in my gut I just don't believe that he didn't know and wasn't involved in the cover up.