Penn st appealing?

[Thawki]

Without getting into the legality of it, I really have been disappointed with the response of Penn State to the sanctions. It really feels like they missed the point entirely.

The "us against the world" mentality really feels great for the players and coaches and if that is what it takes for them to be motivated then that is fine. However, for the fans, boosters, and donors to take such a stance as well is disturbing. It is almost as if they have forgotten about the kids and have moved on to caring about Penn State football again. Maybe it is unreasonable to expect people to carry the burden who were not directly involved, but lets be honest, it's the football culture that the NCAA is trying to punish, and it isn't working. The people around the university feel wronged by the NCAA, as if they are not responsible, and yet they are. The public at large has thrown all the blame on Paterno, Schultz, Spanier, and co but I'm not confident that we should. Emmert in his speech when the sanctions were announced spoke of "hero worship" as being dangerous in college athletics. Ask yourself who really built up all this pressure on the image of Penn State football and the answer isn't Joe Paterno, its the fans, boosters, donors, and people who hero worshiped someone who clearly was just another guy.

I would wholeheartedly disagree with a statement that places any blame on fans or the media for any of this. I don't disagree that the culture needs to be changed and they are part of that. But I also don't think the rabid fan base or anyone else bears any blame for the actions of several men that were selfish in their desires to hide the abuse.

Under that premise the members of the Catholic Church would be held responsible for their own abuse debacle.

 

[Thawki]

Another legal eagle's response:

"1. They do not clearly entitle the organization to punish Penn State. The way they have selectively chosen to enforce it in the past (Baylor basketball coach covered up a murder and they didn’t invoke it) would work against them in court.

2. The President of Penn State acted without consulting the BOT. The university by-laws do not allow the President to write checks prior to consulting the BOT, which happened in this case.

3. Louis Freeh’s report has more holes than Barack Obama’s birth certificate. I’ve read it in its entirety and the conclusion that this was a massive coverup to protect the university’s image is not even remotely supported at all by the facts in his report. Louis Freeh also recently wrote a report on a FIFA (soccer) President that resulted in the man’s lifetime ban from the sport. That ban was lifted last month by a Swiss court that ruled Freeh’s conclusions didn’t match the evidence provided. (Sound familiar?). Louis Freeh is also a left-wing political hack who ran a very shady FBI back in the 90s. Guess what Joe Paterno was? A life-long conservative Republican. Freeh was hired to do exactly what he did. Pin it all on Paterno."

How can someone who flippantly claims the President's birth certificate has a lot of holes in it claim to be making an unbiased comment that Freeh is a liberal political hack? If he was that then why was he allowed to continue to serve under an ultra-conservative president after the 2000 elections?

Most of this thread has been pretty interesting, but that commentary is rather stupid and insulting. If someone is trying to come off as having a legal mind then why I they commenting in a political manner about the President's birth certificate in a way that only the deranged and desperate VERY FAR RIGHT would only claim?

These posts have done a great job of leaving politics out of the equation but I see no need to let idiotic commentary go uncontested. I don't really consider the legal opinion of "Birther" to be something that should be taken at face value.

 

[NorthernHawkI]

I would wholeheartedly disagree with a statement that places any blame on fans or the media for any of this. I don't disagree that the culture needs to be changed and they are part of that. But I also don't think the rabid fan base or anyone else bears any blame for the actions of several men that were selfish in their desires to hide the abuse.

Under that premise the members of the Catholic Church would be held responsible for their own abuse debacle.

The fans and the media are the culture. Without fans and media, there would be no money, no glory, no widespread fame for keeping a program at a high level. The expectations and pressure placed on the football program were not entirely put there by the coaches and players. At atmosphere of will at all costs and hero worship created by the fans and media was exactly the problem.

Without those two things what would Joe Paterno's decision have been then? It would have been a decision between, to report a man for child sex abuse, or take a PR hit for an amature football program. Take away the money and fame, what you find is that the leadership would have had an even easier decision to make they wouldn't have to consider the well being of the football program. The fans and the media elevated football to a level of importance to where it never belonged.

 

[jackl]

The fans and the media are the culture. Without fans and media, there would be no money, no glory, no widespread fame for keeping a program at a high level. The expectations and pressure placed on the football program were not entirely put there by the coaches and players. At atmosphere of will at all costs and hero worship created by the fans and media was exactly the problem.

Without those two things what would Joe Paterno's decision have been then? It would have been a decision between, to report a man for child sex abuse, or take a PR hit for an amature football program. Take away the money and fame, what you find is that the leadership would have had an even easier decision to make they wouldn't have to consider the well being of the football program. The fans and the media elevated football to a level of importance to where it never belonged.

Excellent post.

 

[tm3308]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:

"I am one of the very few persons in the U.S. who has downloaded, printed,
and read every word of the Freeh Report. So I have the disadvantage
of knowing what I am talking about.

I think when the case eventually gets into the Federal court, Penn State
will win. The Penn State trustees are asserting that Mr. Erickson did not
have authority to enter into the consent decree. The NCAA response is that
Penn State was looking down the gun barrel at a four year "death penalty"
if Erickson did not sign the consent decree.

In the law, that is called "coercion" which is something we learn about in
our first year of law school.

I think all aspects of the NCAA penalty against Penn State can be affirmed
EXCEPT the $60 million fine. That is a "taking" of property without due
process of law. I am not aware of any other cases in which the NCAA has
imposed anything that even resembles such an enormous and onerous fine.

Penn State's Board of Trustees will have some good, high-priced lawyers who
will assert the arguments I have described above, and a lot more."

This lawyer's definition of "coercion" has an awful lot of similarities to plea bargains.

Now, either this lawyer is prominent because he's so good, he never has to accept plea bargains; or he's a ******* moron. I'm leaning toward the latter.

 

[ThunderHawk]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:

"I am one of the very few persons in the U.S. who has downloaded, printed,
and read every word of the Freeh Report. So I have the disadvantage
of knowing what I am talking about.

I think when the case eventually gets into the Federal court, Penn State
will win. The Penn State trustees are asserting that Mr. Erickson did not
have authority to enter into the consent decree. The NCAA response is that
Penn State was looking down the gun barrel at a four year "death penalty"
if Erickson did not sign the consent decree.

In the law, that is called "coercion" which is something we learn about in
our first year of law school.

I think all aspects of the NCAA penalty against Penn State can be affirmed
EXCEPT the $60 million fine. That is a "taking" of property without due
process of law. I am not aware of any other cases in which the NCAA has
imposed anything that even resembles such an enormous and onerous fine.

Penn State's Board of Trustees will have some good, high-priced lawyers who
will assert the arguments I have described above, and a lot more."

Yeah, they'll assert all of that. I'd assert all of that, I'd take PSU's money for doing it, and I'd plan on losing in court. Why? Because PSU is a voluntary member of the NCAA. If they don't want to adhere to NCAA rules and sanctions, they can go join the NAIA.

Oh, and the assertion that the president doesn't have the authority is as shaky as a tweaker trying to grab a hot curling iron.

Plus there's the minor problem of PSU actually being the party which produced the Freeh report.

Good luck, PSU trustees. You've already distinguished yourselves so grandly. This is just the cherry on the Disgust Sundae.

 

[ThunderHawk]

I am curious as to why someone that is an Iowa fan would pay money for collegiate apparel from another Big Ten school. I Don't think it has ever dawned on me to do that.

It's easier to burn it if you own it.

 

[BillikenHawkeye]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:

"I am one of the very few persons in the U.S. who has downloaded, printed,
and read every word of the Freeh Report. So I have the disadvantage
of knowing what I am talking about.

I think when the case eventually gets into the Federal court, Penn State
will win. The Penn State trustees are asserting that Mr. Erickson did not
have authority to enter into the consent decree. The NCAA response is that
Penn State was looking down the gun barrel at a four year "death penalty"
if Erickson did not sign the consent decree.

In the law, that is called "coercion" which is something we learn about in
our first year of law school.

I think all aspects of the NCAA penalty against Penn State can be affirmed
EXCEPT the $60 million fine. That is a "taking" of property without due
process of law. I am not aware of any other cases in which the NCAA has
imposed anything that even resembles such an enormous and onerous fine.

Penn State's Board of Trustees will have some good, high-priced lawyers who
will assert the arguments I have described above, and a lot more."

I don't think your prominent lawyer friend knows the law very well. In the 1988 case of NCAA v. Tarkanian, the Supreme Court held that NCAA sanctions were not state action because the NCAA is a private association, and thus were not subject to the Due Process Clause, which only applies to government action. Thus, there is no taking, an Due Process is not required. Unless the Supreme Court were to reverse it's precedent, or apply it differently, PSU could not argue that the NCAA's applied a fine without due process.

As others have mentioned, these rouge board members probably do not have standing since they do not have the full authority of the board. Unless they can convince a judge to allow them to bring a derivative lawsuit, their lawsuit probably will not go too far.

 

[Thawki]

The fans and the media are the culture. Without fans and media, there would be no money, no glory, no widespread fame for keeping a program at a high level. The expectations and pressure placed on the football program were not entirely put there by the coaches and players. At atmosphere of will at all costs and hero worship created by the fans and media was exactly the problem.

Without those two things what would Joe Paterno's decision have been then? It would have been a decision between, to report a man for child sex abuse, or take a PR hit for an amature football program. Take away the money and fame, what you find is that the leadership would have had an even easier decision to make they wouldn't have to consider the well being of the football program. The fans and the media elevated football to a level of importance to where it never belonged.

I'm sorry but it is the responsibility of the leadership to keep the culture where it should be. So, again, the blame falls on the leadership that allowed the culture to get out of control.

Everyone (at least it seems like everyone) whines when Iowa's leadership tries to rein in alcohol on gameday. That is an example of leadership doing something to control the culture and not let it grow to the point where it is unhealthy. You can debate the effectiveness in this instance, but this is an example of that, nonetheless.PSU's leadership didn't handle that responsibility very well, to be sure. But I believe it is idiotic to blame fans and media because grown men in positions of great responsibility can't make the proper decision in an instance like this.

Some would say that the leadership without a doubt creates the expectations. They create the atmosphere that allows a fanbase to get excited and they are also responsible to make sure that the fan base acts in an appropriate manner. They do this by doing what they are paid to do, which is to lead. People knew they better not be paying basketball players to go to IU under Bob Knight's watch. Whether you liked him or not as a coach that is an example of leadership setting the tone for the culture. I won't debate whether they had their own hero worship problems there, but my example is sound.

Time and again people complain about how nowadays no one wants to take responsibility for personal actions. Now when this comes up all of the sudden you want to blame innocent fans when grown men, LEADERS OF A LARGE INSTITUTION WHO ARE PAID QUITE WELL TO ACTUALLY LEAD, make the wrong decisions? Here is a news flash: Leaders are supposed to lead and fans follow. Fans do NOT lead. Fans are by definition fanatic FOLLOWERS of a team.

You might not like a fanbase, but they certainly didn't force anyone to lie about Sandusky and cover his actions. There were actual leaders at PSU that did that, sad as it is to say. Think about some of this next time Iowa's leadership does something you don't like as it relates to sports. I am not saying I like everything they do, but you can see one of the alternatives right here in this case.

I can guarantee you if someone at Iowa hired poor leaders and they did something like this I wouldn't sit around and blame myself for being a rabid fan. I would put the blame squarely where it belonged and that would be on the ones who made the poor decisions, including who put processes into place that led to those hiring decisions and who actually made hiring decisions of people that lacked the proper character. I would blame those that made poor decisions. As a matter of fact, I would probably blame everyone EXCEPT the fans and media.

In my opinion, the people on this (and probably a lot of other message boards) that want to blame fans and media are a bunch of hypocrites. I bet most of them would be guilty of doing the same thing if they were PSU alums.

They all want to say the fans were too out of control and that created a huge problem. But take away the Mrytle Street Parking Lot on gameday and look at the uproar on this board. Try to keep people from getting so drunk that they go into public restrooms and have sex with someone they barely know and you are somehow having your rights infringed upon.

But the PSU fanbase is out of control. This debacle proves it, right?

Look, I don't want to have someone tell me what I can do on gameday. But I darn well recognize that in trying to put some controls in place they are trying to lead and keep the culture from getting to a point where it is out of control.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I'm sorry but it is the responsibility of the leadership to keep the culture where it should be. So, again, the blame falls on the leadership that allowed the culture to get out of control.

Everyone (at least it seems like everyone) whines when Iowa's leadership tries to rein in alcohol on gameday. That is an example of leadership doing something to control the culture and not let it grow to the point where it is unhealthy. You can debate the effectiveness in this instance, but this is an example of that, nonetheless.PSU's leadership didn't handle that responsibility very well, to be sure. But I believe it is idiotic to blame fans and media because grown men in positions of great responsibility can't make the proper decision in an instance like this.

Some would say that the leadership without a doubt creates the expectations. They create the atmosphere that allows a fanbase to get excited and they are also responsible to make sure that the fan base acts in an appropriate manner. They do this by doing what they are paid to do, which is to lead. People knew they better not be paying basketball players to go to IU under Bob Knight's watch. Whether you liked him or not as a coach that is an example of leadership setting the tone for the culture. I won't debate whether they had their own hero worship problems there, but my example is sound.

Time and again people complain about how nowadays no one wants to take responsibility for personal actions. Now when this comes up all of the sudden you want to blame innocent fans when grown men, LEADERS OF A LARGE INSTITUTION WHO ARE PAID QUITE WELL TO ACTUALLY LEAD, make the wrong decisions? Here is a news flash: Leaders are supposed to lead and fans follow. Fans do NOT lead. Fans are by definition fanatic FOLLOWERS of a team.

You might not like a fanbase, but they certainly didn't force anyone to lie about Sandusky and cover his actions. There were actual leaders at PSU that did that, sad as it is to say. Think about some of this next time Iowa's leadership does something you don't like as it relates to sports. I am not saying I like everything they do, but you can see one of the alternatives right here in this case.

I can guarantee you if someone at Iowa hired poor leaders and they did something like this I wouldn't sit around and blame myself for being a rabid fan. I would put the blame squarely where it belonged and that would be on the ones who made the poor decisions, including who put processes into place that led to those hiring decisions and who actually made hiring decisions of people that lacked the proper character. I would blame those that made poor decisions. As a matter of fact, I would probably blame everyone EXCEPT the fans and media.

In my opinion, the people on this (and probably a lot of other message boards) that want to blame fans and media are a bunch of hypocrites. I bet most of them would be guilty of doing the same thing if they were PSU alums.

They all want to say the fans were too out of control and that created a huge problem. But take away the Mrytle Street Parking Lot on gameday and look at the uproar on this board. Try to keep people from getting so drunk that they go into public restrooms and have sex with someone they barely know and you are somehow having your rights infringed upon.

But the PSU fanbase is out of control. This debacle proves it, right?

Look, I don't want to have someone tell me what I can do on gameday. But I darn well recognize that in trying to put some controls in place they are trying to lead and keep the culture from getting to a point where it is out of control.

Keep Lois Feldman out of this. Seriously.

 

[HeavenHasBeer]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:

"Hey, ill get u a job if u make psu look good"

 

[HeavenHasBeer]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:"Hey, ill get u a job if u make psu look good="

=

Sorry, i forgot to add "FIFY"

 

[alexzelada]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:

"I am one of the very few persons in the U.S. who has downloaded, printed,
and read every word of the Freeh Report. So I have the disadvantage
of knowing what I am talking about.

I think when the case eventually gets into the Federal court, Penn State
will win. The Penn State trustees are asserting that Mr. Erickson did not
have authority to enter into the consent decree. The NCAA response is that
Penn State was looking down the gun barrel at a four year "death penalty"
if Erickson did not sign the consent decree.

In the law, that is called "coercion" which is something we learn about in
our first year of law school.

I think all aspects of the NCAA penalty against Penn State can be affirmed
EXCEPT the $60 million fine. That is a "taking" of property without due
process of law. I am not aware of any other cases in which the NCAA has
imposed anything that even resembles such an enormous and onerous fine.

Penn State's Board of Trustees will have some good, high-priced lawyers who
will assert the arguments I have described above, and a lot more."

That's nice. But my wife is an attorney. The first thing you learn in law school isn't how "coercion" negates contracts. The first thing you learn is that Lawyers who think they're clairvoyant lose lots of cases and eventually find themselves either broke; disbarred or sounding like an idiot on a cable news program.

 

[HeavenHasBeer]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:"I am one of the very few persons in the U.S. who has downloaded, printed, and read every word of the Freeh Report. So I have the disadvantageof knowing what I am talking about. I think when the case eventually gets into the Federal court, Penn Statewill win. The Penn State trustees are asserting that Mr. Erickson did not have authority to enter into the consent decree. The NCAA response is that Penn State was looking down the gun barrel at a four year "death penalty" if Erickson did not sign the consent decree. In the law, that is called "coercion" which is something we learn about in our first year of law school. I think all aspects of the NCAA penalty against Penn State can be affirmedEXCEPT the $60 million fine. That is a "taking" of property without due process of law. I am not aware of any other cases in which the NCAA has imposed anything that even resembles such an enormous and onerous fine. Penn State's Board of Trustees will have some good, high-priced lawyers who will assert the arguments I have described above, and a lot more."

That's nice. But my wife is an attorney. The first thing you learn in law school isn't how "coercion" negates contracts. The first thing you learn is that Lawyers who think they're clairvoyant lose lots of cases and eventually find themselves either broke; disbarred or sounding like an idiot on a cable news program.

 

[smhawk]

Why don't they just swallow their pill. For a long stretch of time they employed people in leadership roles that covered up sexual abuse to children. How Sh***y of a PR move is it to try to defend yourself after this bad of a clusterf***.

 

[HeavenHasBeer]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:"I am one of the very few persons in the U.S. who has downloaded, printed, and read every word of the Freeh Report. So I have the disadvantageof knowing what I am talking about. I think when the case eventually gets into the Federal court, Penn Statewill win. The Penn State trustees are asserting that Mr. Erickson did not have authority to enter into the consent decree. The NCAA response is that Penn State was looking down the gun barrel at a four year "death penalty" if Erickson did not sign the consent decree. In the law, that is called "coercion" which is something we learn about in our first year of law school. I think all aspects of the NCAA penalty against Penn State can be affirmedEXCEPT the $60 million fine. That is a "taking" of property without due process of law. I am not aware of any other cases in which the NCAA has imposed anything that even resembles such an enormous and onerous fine. Penn State's Board of Trustees will have some good, high-priced lawyers who will assert the arguments I have described above, and a lot more."

That's nice. But my wife is an attorney. The first thing you learn in law school isn't how "coercion" negates contracts. The first thing you learn is that Lawyers who think they're clairvoyant lose lots of cases and eventually find themselves either broke; disbarred or sounding like an idiot on a cable news program.

Obviously u your wife is not a "prominent" 'lawyer' in "Los Angeles"

 

[daverhawk]

Sorry for the length. I thought this was great insight by Akaba on the Rivals Pitt board.

""As I read the article it seems that the new "band of
4" Trustees will file an appeal with the NCAA. One of two things will
then happen:

(1) The NCAA will deny the
appeal. The NCAA may or may not state the grounds for the denial, but
in my view the NCAA does NOT have to pay ANY attention to the actions of
a minority of members of the BOT, in this case, 4 members, because it is UNrepresentative of the majority of the BOT.

(2)
The NCAA will grant the appeal (unlikely), and then not change its mind
in any regard as to sanctions. But I can not see the NCAA giving a minority of the BOT, 4 members, a hearing, because the minority does not speak for the BOT.

At that point, if those 4 BOT want to go to Federal Court they have some decisions to make:

(1) Do they sue the NCAA --- most likely a losing venture, again because they are only 4 members of the BOT, and therefore are UNrepresentative of the BOT, and PSU.

(2) Do they sue PSU, and its current BOT, and its current president Erickson. Here the theory would be the equivalent of an ultra vires act by Erickson --- that Erickson acted outside the scope of his authority by signing the Consent Decree.

Some readers may recall that my suggestion to Erickson would have been to have the BOT ratify after the fact his signing of the Consent Decree. That can be
done. In other words, and just for sake of argument, assume that
Erickson overstepped his authority by signing the Consent Decree as he
should have, for sake of discussion, reviewed it with the BOT prior to
placing his signature on that document. Nevertheless, after the fact the BOT can still ratify his actions.

I
wrote in a prior post as to the Paterno family suing the NCAA, and it
applies here as well, be wary of the old adage --- "be careful what you
wish for, because you just might get it". In other words, there was a
lot of smoke, and sufficient evidence, surrounding the PSU program which
indicated to the Freeh Group that the football program and its
coach, dictated policy to the athletic diretor, and to the president of
the University. That is unacceptable --- yet the die hard PSU football
fan, and Paterno devotee, deny that a circumstance ever existed at PSU.

While the NCAA does not have subpoena power when it launces a formal investigation (and neither did the Freeh Group), it will
have subpoena power if these trustees sue the NCAA in Federal Court,
and if somehow, such an action were to survive an immediate motion to
dismiss by the NCAA (and such a legal action might not even so survive,
because the lawsuit is UNrepresentative of the BOT, since it would only be initiated by 4 members).

But, if the NCAA would be sued in Federal Court, and if in the unlikely event that lawsuit, UNrepresentative
as it would be coming from just 4 BOT members, were to somehow survive a
motion to dismiss by the NCAA, then the NCAA should launch an
aggressive 'sorch the Earth" subpoeana policy, and get the information
which the Freeh Group was unable to obtain (as it lacked subpoena
authority).

And a good place to start would be events in 1998, when the day after Sanduskiy took the young boy into the PSU coaches showers, a PhD, Dr. Alycia Chambers, and her colleagues
(plural) concluded that Sandusky was a likely pedophile and reported to
the PSU police Dectective, who then shared it with assistant DA Karen
Arnold (who refused to cooperate with the Freeh Group, but would have to
speak with the NCAA were it to subpoena her), and which Detective in
all likelihood shared it with the PSU Police Chief per his demand to
know everything, and then from the Police Chief to Schultz via Schulutz
demand to know everything --- and Schultz then reports to AD Curley, and
then to Paterno. That way, the world can know what the smoke indicates
--- everyone at PSU knew Sandusky was a likely pedophile in 1998.

Wow
--- the article is further evidence that PSU football really does rule
the die hard PSU fan's life, their existence, and to the very core of
their individualized meaning and being --- and that is very sad but at
this point I guess not surprising."

 

[deanvogs]

.

And a good place to start would be events in 1998, when the day after Sanduskiy took the young boy into the PSU coaches showers, a PhD, Dr. Alycia Chambers, and her colleagues
(plural) concluded that Sandusky was a likely pedophile and reported to
the PSU police Dectective, who then shared it with assistant DA Karen
Arnold (who refused to cooperate with the Freeh Group, but would have to
speak with the NCAA were it to subpoena her), and which Detective in
all likelihood shared it with the PSU Police Chief per his demand to
know everything, and then from the Police Chief to Schultz via Schulutz
demand to know everything --- and Schultz then reports to AD Curley, and
then to Paterno. That way, the world can know what the smoke indicates
--- everyone at PSU knew Sandusky was a likely pedophile in 1998.

Thanks for posting this. For some reason most of those who defend Penn St. seem to think there is no direct link or knowledge that Paterno, or others knew what Sandusky was. The truth is there is no way they DIDN'T know. To actually think that Joe Paterno would let his D coordinator be forced into retirement without knowing the reasons why is just sheer lunacy. Paterno was Penn St. and there is no way Sandusky is forced out in 1998 without Paterno knowing the whole story.

 

[DuffMan]

A prominent lawyer in Los Angeles sent me the following opinion:"I am one of the very few persons in the U.S. who has downloaded, printed, and read every word of the Freeh Report. So I have the disadvantageof knowing what I am talking about. I think when the case eventually gets into the Federal court, Penn Statewill win. The Penn State trustees are asserting that Mr. Erickson did not have authority to enter into the consent decree. The NCAA response is that Penn State was looking down the gun barrel at a four year "death penalty" if Erickson did not sign the consent decree. In the law, that is called "coercion" which is something we learn about in our first year of law school. I think all aspects of the NCAA penalty against Penn State can be affirmedEXCEPT the $60 million fine. That is a "taking" of property without due process of law. I am not aware of any other cases in which the NCAA has imposed anything that even resembles such an enormous and onerous fine. Penn State's Board of Trustees will have some good, high-priced lawyers who will assert the arguments I have described above, and a lot more."

dumbest. *******. lawyer. on. earth.

 

[DuffMan]

Another legal eagle's response:"1. They do not clearly entitle the organization to punish Penn State. The way they have selectively chosen to enforce it in the past (Baylor basketball coach covered up a murder and they didn�t invoke it) would work against them in court.2. The President of Penn State acted without consulting the BOT. The university by-laws do not allow the President to write checks prior to consulting the BOT, which happened in this case.3. Louis Freeh�s report has more holes than Barack Obama�s birth certificate. I�ve read it in its entirety and the conclusion that this was a massive coverup to protect the university�s image is not even remotely supported at all by the facts in his report. Louis Freeh also recently wrote a report on a FIFA (soccer) President that resulted in the man�s lifetime ban from the sport. That ban was lifted last month by a Swiss court that ruled Freeh�s conclusions didn�t match the evidence provided. (Sound familiar?). Louis Freeh is also a left-wing political hack who ran a very shady FBI back in the 90s. Guess what Joe Paterno was? A life-long conservative Republican. Freeh was hired to do exactly what he did. Pin it all on Paterno."

i stand corrected