Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The NCAA Dropkicks Penn State

106 posts in this topic

Posted

If being an asshole is my worst offense in life....I'm still going to die a better person than Paterno

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm not a Paterno defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Your thoughts have NOT turned out to be correct....you just believe they did.

1. You have no idea what Paterno knew or intended.

2. Did he know that Sandusky was doing what he did?

3. What was he told by McQuery (we still do not know this as McQuery has changed his story no less than 4 times and the jury did not even believe him.....one of two counts that Sandusky was not convicted of)?

4. Did he intentionally cover up horrific crimes to save the reputation of himself and the university?

5. You and I still do not know the answers to these questions.

6. You assume that he knew and covered it up. And, you may very well be correct. However, you may also be incorrect in your assumption of his intent.

7. He very well may have truly believed that the incidents were misunderstandings and believed Sandusky's lies. This does not excuse his inactions (as their decision was VERY wrong). However, it does go a long way to motives, intent....something that you claim to know that he intentionally did.

8. As for selfish for staying.....Bowden was doing the same thing at FSU. The University had to fire him to get him to leave. You have no idea as to his motives for continuing to coach. The guy loved PSU and loved coaching. He was getting a great salary to do what he loved. I would not expect someone to leave as long as that were true.

9. He very well may have been staying to get the record. Or, he very well may have stayed becuase he loved what he did. Again, you THINK that you know his intentions. Yet, again, you are just talking out of your ass.

10. I don't expect anyone to change their minds because I have talked to people that knew the man. You think their views are biased. Just the same way that I believe a person's opinion who has himself said that hated the progam and coach for years is completely biased and irrelevant.

1. That's because he lied when asked and tiptoed around the truth when he finally did admit to knowing "something of a sexual nature" occurred. The conversation ends there for people with proper faculties, but in your case, we can keep going over this since it still hasn't registered for you.

2. Yes, clearly. He was told directly and then spear-headed a cover-up to hide it for nearly two decades.

3. Is your monitor broken?

"He (McQueary) had seen a person, an older person, fondling a young boy," Paterno testified. "I don't know what you would call it, but it was of a sexual nature. I didn't push Mike to describe it because he was already upset, but it was something inappropriate to a youngster."

4. Clearly. Perhaps you're heard about the sanctions that got handed down because of it?

5. Half of that is correct.

6. No, you said it in your second sentence. I am correct.

7. This matters again why? He still aided and conspired to protect a child rapist on campus for in three different decades. Why are you worried about his motive? Clearly it was to protect himself and leave as the NCAA wins leader.

8. And? Doesn't make either situation acceptable. At least FSU had the balls to finally do something instead of waiting for Father Time to literally kill their coach of old age.

9. Again, this doesn't matter and has nothing to do with him staying for selfish reasons and covering up child rape to protect himself.

10. Biased. Irrelevant. And 100% right this entire time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1. That's because he lied when asked and tiptoed around the truth when he finally did admit to knowing "something of a sexual nature" occurred. The conversation ends there for people with proper faculties, but in your case, we can keep going over this since it still hasn't registered for you.

2. Yes, clearly. He was told directly and then spear-headed a cover-up to hide it for nearly two decades.

3. Is your monitor broken?

4. Clearly. Perhaps you're heard about the sanctions that got handed down because of it?

5. Half of that is correct.

6. No, you said it in your second sentence. I am correct.

7. This matters again why? He still aided and conspired to protect a child rapist on campus for in three different decades. Why are you worried about his motive? Clearly it was to protect himself and leave as the NCAA wins leader.

8. And? Doesn't make either situation acceptable. At least FSU had the balls to finally do something instead of waiting for Father Time to literally kill their coach of old age.

9. Again, this doesn't matter and has nothing to do with him staying for selfish reasons and covering up child rape to protect himself.

10. Biased. Irrelevant. And 100% right this entire time.

You are completely missing my point....again.

I am not defending any of the actions or inactions that were taken at PSU. The leadership there screwed up big time....innocent kids suffered....and the university is correctly paying for it now. I support the sanctions because I think that an example definitely needs to be made to ensure this type of situation NEVER happens again....at any school.

Do I think that Paterno, Curley, etc. should be held accountable for their decision on how they handled it....absolutely. I think that each of them should pay the price (and yes paterno if he were alive), either criminally (if the courts deemed that they broke the law) or via lawsuit by the victims at a minimum.

Their actions directly contributed to the abuse, and they are guilty of that.

You have moved on to "knowing" about other aspects of the situation which are nothing more than your opinion.

You believe that he intentionally covered it up in 1998 and 2003 to protect himself and the university. While this may be true, it could very well also be that they did not believe the allegations and allowed their judgement to be clouded.

You believe that he stayed only to build his own legacy and get the record. This may be true, but it could also very well be that he loved coaching and wanted to continue that career until he was physically unable to do so.

Based on people that I know and trust (who knew him), I am inclined to believe the latter. Based on your hatred for him and PSU, you are inclined to believe the former. I may be correct on these, or you may be correct on these. Neither one of us knows.

Again, these points do not excuse their actions or inactions. But you are still talking out of your ass when you say you know "why" he did certain things and you "know" what he knew..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Don't you love people who gloat over a tragic situation? Look at me, everybody! I called Paterno an asshole all along! (spins around in his pink tutu) Can I have a cookie?

Husker, you still haven't answered why the rest of the men involved in the cover up aren't just as guilty as Paterno. Their jobs were at risk? Miles Brand was burned in effigy at Indiana.

Try as you may, this isn't all on one guy. Paterno died a heartbroken man and his legacy is gone. His family has to live on with the shame of all this. Stop fapping and see that there is no winner here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Don't you love people who gloat over a tragic situation? Look at me, everybody! I called Paterno an asshole all along! (spins around in his pink tutu) Can I have a cookie?

Let me just start by pointing out how weird and unfunny that was.

Husker, you still haven't answered why the rest of the men involved in the cover up aren't just as guilty as Paterno. Their jobs were at risk? Miles Brand was burned in effigy at Indiana.

I've answered it several times. I've also pointed out how you appear to be about a year behind the rest of us with this story, so I should be used to explaining things to you at this point. The only person, not counting Sandusky, obviously, that's more culpable in this than Paterno is McQueary. But Paterno created that environment where people were afraid to speak out, spearheaded the subsequent cover-up, and lied about it until his final breath. He's a piece of poo. That's not debatable.

Try as you may, this isn't all on one guy. Paterno died a heartbroken man and his legacy is gone. His family has to live on with the shame of all this. Stop fapping and see that there is no winner here.

Awwwww you're right. Our thoughts really should be with the Paternos during these trying times, huh? How insensitive of us.

For someone who goes out of his way to try relate everything back to limp-wristed libruhls, you really are a whiny pussy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Paterno, for all the great things he did, will be remembered for the actions he ultimately decided not to take. That may be viewed as unfair, but ultimately, there are much bigger things at stake here than some stupid ruined legacy. I wish the Paterno family would stop releasing such ignorant statements.

The "grand experiment" at Penn State, designed to cultivate a model for other BCS programs to follow, ultimately failed because the football program and Joe Paterno had so much power, no one was willing to question anything about any wrongdoing. Look at this thread. The Freeh Report says Joe Paterno KNEW about Sandusky's actions for a decade, yet he and that program are so blindly idolized, people STILL want to contend that Paterno should be completely exonerated. Do you not see the disconnect here and the reasoning behind this NCAA punishment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The only person, not counting Sandusky, obviously, that's more culpable in this than Paterno is McQueary. But Paterno created that environment where people were afraid to speak out, spearheaded the subsequent cover-up, and lied about it until his final breath. He's a piece of poo. That's not debatable.

I haven't read the report and don't plan to until the man is done revising it. Since the last revision is about 2 days ago, my as well wait a little longer till he is done. However non-Penn Staters are debating what the report has on Paterno.

Power Line

The consensus emerged from the report of Louis Freeh regarding Penn State’s actions related to the sexual abuse committed by Sandusky. But a friend of mine — a top-notch lawyer and former federal prosecutor — has carefully reviewed the Freeh Report. He concludes that the Report does not establish wrongdoing by Joe Paterno. Having now looked at the Freeh Report, I agree.

Here is what my friend wrote:

I believe the media, the Freeh Report, and many others have misrepresented Joe Paterno’s culpability in the Jerry Sandusky matter. The evidence against Mr. Paterno amounts to virtually nothing. After more than 430 interviews and a review of more than 3.5 million documents and other information, the Freeh Report concludes that three emails from other people – former Penn State President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and Senior Vice President Gary Schultz – prove that Mr. Paterno was a co-conspirator in a cover-up. I do not read the evidence in the Freeh Report that way, and I do not believe the conclusions about Mr. Paterno are either warranted or fair.

The claim seems to be that Mr. Paterno knew about a 1998 allegation and did nothing, and that in 2001, when he learned about Mike McQueary’s information, he waited a day before he reported the information to the athletic director (Curley) and the vice president in charge of the University Police (Schultz) and then did nothing else.

First, with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report says that several authorities promptly investigated and reviewed the matter, including the Department of Public Welfare, the University Police Department, the State College police, and the local district attorney’s office. Freeh Report at 42-47. A “counselor” named John Seasock issued a report that found “no indication of child abuse.” Freeh Report at 42-46. Mr. Seasock interviewed the alleged victim and determined that “there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children.” Freeh Report at 44 (quoting Mr. Seasock’s 1998 evaluation of the alleged victim). The Freeh Report adds that Mr. Seasock “couldn’t find any indication of child abuse.” Freeh Report at 45.

The police investigated and “did not question Sandusky at this time,” and the Freeh Report says that “the local District Attorney declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions.” Freeh Report at 45-46. A “senior administrator” explained that “the case against Sandusky was ‘severely hampered’ by Seasock’s report.” Freeh Report at 46. The University Police also investigatedthe matter and unlike the local police, they interviewed Sandusky. Sandusky claimed “nothing happened” (Freeh Report at 46) and the University Police concluded that “no sexual assault occurred.” Freeh Report at 47.

The only evidence of Mr. Paterno’s involvement is a passing reference in an email from Curley to Spanier and Schultz that says that Curley “touched base with the coach. Keep us posted.” Freeh Report at 20, 48. A second email from Curley to Schultz that says “Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Freeh Report at 20, 48. There is no other information about Mr. Paterno’s involvement in the incident. In fact, the Freeh Report does not even establish that the references to “Coach” refer to Joe Paterno. The most it can and does say is that “[t]he reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.” Freeh Report at 49. The Freeh Report cites no evidence to support this assertion, but even if “Coach” refers to Coach Paterno, what do these emails prove? The answer is: nothing. At most, these emails suggest that Mr. Paterno was concerned and wanted to know whether Sandusky was guilty of any wrongdoing.

Of course, if Mr. Paterno did express concern about the matter, then the question becomes: what did anyone tell him about the allegations and the investigation?

The Freeh Report provides no answer to this question. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 allegations against Sandusky. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Mr. Paterno did or said, or what anyone said to Mr. Paterno. Indeed, the Freeh Report suggests that both law enforcement and the University police agreed that nothing improper happened and that the allegations lacked merit. Did anyone tell Joe Paterno about those findings?

The Freeh Report concludes that the “record” is “not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno.” Freeh Report at 51. The Report includes many statements that assert things like “nothing in the record indicates that Joe Paterno spoke with Sandusky.” See, e.g., Freeh Report at 51. The absence of evidence or information proves only that Mr. Freeh did not find evidence. It does not affirmatively prove anything about Mr. Paterno.

Furthermore, despite the lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno’s culpability with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report accuses Mr. Paterno of “allow[ing] Sandusky to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child predator, but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy.” Freeh Report at 17. The Freeh Report’s expression of outrage may sound compelling now, with the benefit of hindsight and the evidence that now exists about Sandusky’s criminal misconduct. But given that (1) law enforcement officials and other people investigated the 1998 incident and found no wrongdoing; (2) Seasock’s report exonerated Sandusky; (3) the District Attorney declined to prosecute the case; (4) Sandusky denied the allegations; and (5) the complete lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno’s knowledge, involvement, and actions, it is difficult to see how Mr. Paterno can be subject to ridicule because he “allowed” Sandusky to retire “not as a suspected child predator.”

As to the issue about whether Joe Paterno should have done more with the McQueary information, I keep coming back to one critical missing piece of evidence: what did Curley and Schultz tell him? Schultz, in particular, is the important actor here because he was the top university official in charge of the University Police. Freeh Report at 33. If JoePa wanted to cover this up, he would never have reported McQueary’s information to Curley and Schultz within a day of receiving it. Is waiting one day on a weekend evidence of a cover-up? Mr. Freeh and others seem to think so. The Freeh Report repeatedly cites Mr. Paterno’s comments about not interfering with the weekend as evidence of some kind of evil intent. But, again, this proves nothing. Would the Report conclude differently if Mr.Paterno had spoken with Curley and Schultz on Saturday evening instead of Sunday?

Furthermore, if Mr. Paterno had reported the McQueary information to me (were I, like Schultz, the official in charge of the University Police), I would have told him to keep his mouth shut going forward and let the authorities handle the matter. Otherwise, Mr. Paterno could have tainted the investigation. And, because he was a potential trial witness (to McQueary’s prior consistent statements, see Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)( B) and Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence613©), any further statements or action by Mr. Paterno could have become cross-examination fodder for the defense. Any further action by Mr.Paterno could only have damaged the integrity of the investigation and any prosecution against Sandusky.

Indeed, Mr. Paterno explained his actions before he died by saying that “I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did.” Freeh Report at 77-78. This statement makes perfect sense, and the notion of a football coach supervising a criminal investigation is ridiculous. It is very possible that Curley or Schultz or both told Mr. Paterno to stay out of the matter; in fact, Schultz should have told him as much. But we don’t know because Schultz and Curley are under indictment and not talking, Paterno is dead, and the Freeh Report did not find any information about this issue.

Much of the case against Mr. Paterno seems to rely on (1) the theory that the Athletic Director, Curley, was JoePa’s “errand boy”; and (2) an email dated February 27, 2001 from Curley to Schultz and Spanier which says that Curley gave the matter “more thought” after “talking it over with Joe” and was “uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” Freeh Report at 74-75. But the “errand boy” evidence amounts to a reference by an unidentified “senior Penn State official” (page 75), and what does it prove anyway? That one person viewed Curley as Paterno’s “errand boy”?

There is no evidence that Curley-as-errand-boy covered up because Joe Paterno told him to do so. And the February 27 email at most suggests that Mr. Paterno spoke with Curley. It does not say what Curley and Paterno discussed, and without any explanation from either Curley or Paterno, it is absurd to read into this that Mr. Paterno was the puppet master behind a coverup orchestrated by Curley, Spanier, and Schultz.

Mr. Paterno was a football coach, not an expert in criminal law or investigations, and this notion of him as some kind of omnipotent and omniscient God who callously turned his back on a serial child molester is unsupported by any evidence.

This is a rather sorry record upon which to condemn Joe Paterno.

I'm not going to defend Paterno myself. I haven't read the actual report. I've read media reports either condeming Paterno or saying Freeh is coming to conclusions in his press release not backed by his actual report. I'm waiting till he is done fixing mistakes he made before reading it. Might even wait till after the cases against Curly and Spanier are done.

Only reason I'm posting that is because you said it's not up to debate. Apparently media doesn't think that is actually accurate yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But Paterno created that environment where people were afraid to speak out..

Yes, Joe Paterno, the Adolf Hitler of Happy Valley.

The truth, and this is what has escaped you from the beginning, is that Joe Paterno was a complicated man. He did a TON of good things for people. He helped hundreds of young men, if not thousands, grow into good members of society. People like you snicker when a John Calipari brags on his players' high grades, then turn your back on the one big name coach who actually cared about his players' education, and not just their grades.

We all know the flip side of that. His own hubris destroyed him from inside. He stuck his fingers in his ears and went "la la la" when confronted with something I don't think he understood or wanted to understand, much like a lot of people from his generation, and nobody around him had the balls to call him out on it. I'm sorry, but they are just as guilty as Paterno here. You weren't hired as vice president at Penn State to do whatever Joe wants you to do. And if you took the job under those conditions, you are a worm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

meanwhile at Penn State

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites