Doyell now after Boeheim

[CL82]

1. Doyle is an ass.

2. You need more, in my opinion, to justify firing Boeheim. A solid link that shows the Boeheim knew what was going on. Absent that, it's a smear on his legacy but not grounds for firing. Now if the University actively participated in a cover up, then I can see them throwing JB under the bus, but not quite yet.

 

[Danzz]

He goes after him big time, and raises a point that not a lot of people are really talking about in regards to JB: Doyel's point is that when JB so vehemently attacks an accuser, it prevents any other potential victims from coming forward. I think that's a fair argument

I don't think it is a fair arguement. JB had every right to to strongly support his friend. Obviously he didn't think any of this was true or he wouldn't have been so strong in his support. It is actually an indication that he knew nothing or he wouldn't have made the statements he made.
I'm all for supporting the victims and sentencing the convicted to the max but at some point the victims (who are all adults now) have to be willing to step forward no matter what a basketball coach has to say. JB apologized and that should be the end of it unless new information surfaces.

 

[upstater]

I don't think it is a fair arguement. JB had every right to to strongly support his friend. Obviously he didn't think any of this was true or he wouldn't have been so strong in his support. It is actually an indication that he knew nothing or he wouldn't have made the statements he made.
I'm all for supporting the victims and sentencing the convicted to the max but at some point the victims (who are all adults now) have to be willing to step forward no matter what a basketball coach has to say. JB apologized and that should be the end of it unless new information surfaces.

Your point about JB's motivations works both ways. You come out strongly in order to establish the appearance of your confidence. Holding back means you are suspicious.

Why would victims step forward? One victim is holding back right now, according to advocacy groups, because he doesn't want to go through what Davis is going through. This is not uncommon.

 

[freescooter]

At this point, if Boeheim had any decency he would announce his retirement. it is pretty clear, at least to me, that there was lots of bizzarre stuff, and lots of inappropriate stuff going on with Fine and Syracuse basketball. And it happened on Boeheim's watch. And at least since 2002 or so, when this was reported to the University and the Syracuse police he should have taken a serious look at what Fine and Mrs Fine were doing. He didn't, and now even says he never discussed the investigation with anyone. Really? Your top assistant is being investigated for child abuse and you never discussed it? Didn't say something like, "Bernie, why don't you back off for a while?" Sorry. Not buying the Sgt. Shultz impression. I always like Boeheim as a coach but he needs to do the right thing and resign. If he doesn't, the university needs to fire him.

By the way, just because Doyel is an ass, that doesn't mean he's wrong all the time. Even a stopped clock is right sometimes...

 

[CL82]

According to Boeheim there was an investigation and the people whom Davis said would corroborate his story repudiated it. At that point it was over in his mind. That seems fair to me. You need a new occurrence that Boeheim ignored or hid for him to be fired. I haven’t heard that yet. I’m not saying that it’s not out there. I am saying that I’m not aware of it.

Tell you the truth, my opinion of the average Cuse fan notwithstanding, I’ll be disappointed if Boeheim knew and did nothing. Very disappointed.

By the way, I didn't say Doyle was wrong all the time, just that he's an ass (all the time).

 

[upstater]

According to Boeheim there was an investigation and the people whom Davis said would corroborate his story repudiated it. At that point it was over in his mind. That seems fair to me. You need a new occurrence that Boeheim ignored or hid for him to be fired. I haven’t heard that yet. I’m not saying that it’s not out there. I am saying that I’m not aware of it.

Tell you the truth, my opinion of the average Cuse fan notwithstanding, I’ll be disappointed if Boeheim knew and did nothing. Very disappointed.

By the way, I didn't say Doyle was wrong all the time, just that he's an ass (all the time).

Just as a hypothetical, how would you feel if, say, the victim of the 2002 rape in the Penn State showers repudiated McQueary's story? Does it let Paterno off the hook?

 

[Deadrody]

Frankly, you don't blow up a 30 year career because the coach says some ill-advised things. No, if this is all Doyell has, he should not be fired. That's not to say more info won't come out implicating Boeheim, but right now, you don't fire him over those comments.

In Doyel's world, nothing means anything except what it means to Doyel. The program and career Jim Boeheim built at Syracuse means a little more than being fired for saying the wrong thing.

 

[Deadrody]

Just as a hypothetical, how would you feel if, say, the victim of the 2002 rape in the Penn State showers repudiated McQueary's story? Does it let Paterno off the hook?

Completely different. There were, I believe, EIGHT victims in teh Sandusky grand jury report alone. No one person can undo that.

In Boeheim's case there was ONE accuser who told the university "These FOUR people can corroborate my story", and then not a single one did. I can easily understand Boeheim's point of view.

 

[Deadrody]

Now Coach Boeheim could say up until 2002 that he had no idea that any of this was going on. However, when the investigation was started, he clearly knew very well what Coach Fine has been accused of, but he chose not to believe it

Wrong. Flat out wrong. Boeheim chose to believe an investigation by the university that exonerated Fine at the time. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Prezidint]

I don't think it is a fair arguement. JB had every right to to strongly support his friend. Obviously he didn't think any of this was true or he wouldn't have been so strong in his support. It is actually an indication that he knew nothing or he wouldn't have made the statements he made.

If a detective came to your house and said that a fellow named Stan Perkins had said that Johny Jones was a murdering rapist, and you hadn't ever heard of either of them, would you vehemently say that Stan was a liar?

The point is, if JB knew nothing, then the correct response was - "Fine is my dear friend. I will support him and, based on what I know of this man, these allegations seem impossible."

Coming out and calling the alleged victim a liar is not how somebody responds if they truly know nothing.

Just my opinion. We all react differently.

 

[upstater]

Completely different. There were, I believe, EIGHT victims in teh Sandusky grand jury report alone. No one person can undo that.

In Boeheim's case there was ONE accuser who told the university "These FOUR people can corroborate my story", and then not a single one did. I can easily understand Boeheim's point of view.

I'm referring to Paterno. I'm not trying to establish Sandusky's innocence. Paterno didn't know about 8 victims. He knew about the 2002 kid.

 

[upstater]

Wrong. Flat out wrong. Boeheim chose to believe an investigation by the university that exonerated Fine at the time. There is nothing wrong with that.

But Boeheim himself says he wanted to know nothing about the investigation, that he's just a basketball coach, that's the extent of his responsibility.

 

[CL82]

Just as a hypothetical, how would you feel if, say, the victim of the 2002 rape in the Penn State showers repudiated McQueary's story? Does it let Paterno off the hook?

Not an equivalent hypothetical, Upstater. IF the 2002 victim reported to Paterno in 2010 (@ age of majority) that he was raped in 2002; AND IF it was investigated by the police and university; AND IF McQueary and several other alleged witnesses said that it never happened; AND IF the university and police investigations were closed; AND IF there no other reliable accusers; THEN Joe Pa would not deserve to be fired - but that's not what happened.

I think Fine is a pedophile and should go to jail (and ultimately to hell) but as of today there isn't enough information to justify firing Boeheim, in my opinion. It may surface in the future, but right now it's not there.

 

[selles]

I'm referring to Paterno. I'm not trying to establish Sandusky's innocence. Paterno didn't know about 8 victims. He knew about the 2002 kid.

You don't think he knew about the '98 kid?

 

[upstater]

Not an equivalent hypothetical, Upstater. IF the 2002 victim reported to Paterno in 2010 (@ age of majority) that he was raped in 2002; AND IF it was investigated by the police and university; AND IF McQueary and several other alleged witnesses said that it never happened; AND IF the university and police investigations were closed; AND IF there no other reliable accusers; THEN Joe Pa would not deserve to be fired - but that's not what happened.

I think Fine is a pedophile and should go to jail (and ultimately to hell) but as of today there isn't enough information to justify firing Boeheim, in my opinion. It may surface in the future, but right now it's not there.

Paterno was fired for what he did in 2002, not 2010. The file on Sandusky was reopened later on, and Paterno knew, and everyone knew, that Sandusky was being investigated. The fact that it occurred so slowly is due to the governor being involved with Second Mile. The time from the initial witness by McQueary to the story blowing up again in 2008 is exactly similar to the time of the Syracuse investigation and the story blowing up again in 2011. 6 years. The same amount of time had elapsed. The only difference about each guy's status between then is that one man was fired way back in 1999 and the other was still employed.

By the way, Syracuse PD did NOT do an investigation. They should have. Neither did the PD in State College (they did one in 1998, not 2002). The university investigated in 2002 just as Syracuse investigated in 2005. They even interviewed Sandusky about the charges. Here's the kicker about what wasn't in the Grand Jury report at PSU. Sandusky admitted he was in the shower with the boy and even gave the investigators the name of the boy. The boy said then and he says now that nothing happened. All of this went up before the grand jury and it's surely in the unreleased GJ transcripts. Ultimately, the GJ believed McQueary over Sandusky, the boy/man (now), Curley and Schultz.

Sandusky is not only a disgusting pedophile but a liar. I don't believe the boy frankly. I see no reason for McQueary to testify as to what he saw other than the fact that he was telling the truth. The point of this, do NOT be surprised if Sandusky beats the wrap on 2002 (because of the witnesses' testimony) and also on 1998 (11 counts of the 40 counts against him) because the Chief of Police has already said there was no evidence of a crime. Sandusky might get off on all but 2008. Will that mean that dropped charges against him justify Paterno?

Absolutely not. Paterno made the wrong decision then. He chose plausible deniability over actually asking Mcqueary details of the case. This is what powerful people tend to do in situations like this.

Did you hear Boeheim tonight?

I thought he handled himself quite badly, going on rants about his watch, then saying he doesn't know anything, he's just a coach, and finally, he became combative when discussing the victims and what's known about the case. As though he hadn't made that statement at all one day ago, as though it were written by the university. He still is in Fine's corner, and he's totally unremorseful.

He said he didn't listen to the tape, "What tape?", and furthermore, he'll wait to see what is decided in a court of law, as though that's somehow the standard, especially when SOL might apply here. He's in total denial. And finally he said ballboys don't travel with Syracuse, implying that the whole molestation on roadtrips is a lie. Maybe he meant Davis was not a ballboy at the time, I'm not sure, but it's a crazy point to make regardless. A technicality. He was a ballboy, but when he traveled with us, it wasn't in official capacities as a ballboy?

Huh?

Or is he saying outright again that Davis is lying?

Boeheim is digging himself a deeper hole in my opinion.

I'm not totally saying he should be fired right now because we don't know if the molestation was only with Davis. If it wasn't, maybe Boeheim's comments accusing Davis of lying can be excused. I personally don't think they should be given how he seemed to double down tonight, even defending Fine. But beyond that, his Sargent Schultz routine doesn't cut it anymore. This stuff won't stop until plausible deniability stops.

 

[upstater]

You don't think he knew about the '98 kid?

I do but the same thing that happened in the Cuse case happened then. Investigation was completed, and then what? Nothing happened. In fact, the 1998 case isn't going to hold up in court because even just recently the local Chief of Police said it wasn't a crime. They sent Sandusky on his merry way. Only Sandusky was then either fired or else told that he was never going to be coach. IMO, it would have been totally wrong to use the outcome of the case as a crutch.

 

[orangehomer]

I do but the same thing that happened in the Cuse case happened then. Investigation was completed, and then what? Nothing happened. In fact, the 1998 case isn't going to hold up in court because even just recently the local Chief of Police said it wasn't a crime. They sent Sandusky on his merry way. Only Sandusky was then either fired or else told that he was never going to be coach. IMO, it would have been totally wrong to use the outcome of the case as a crutch.

upstater: what are you so worried about? the feds are now involved in both cases. the feds basically never lose. you should feel fulfilled that justice will be served and be patient as the process plays out. to the contrary, you are obsessed with playing internet sleuth like you understand everything and no one else knows anything. where does that come from?

 

[ctchamps]

I do but the same thing that happened in the Cuse case happened then. Investigation was completed, and then what? Nothing happened. In fact, the 1998 case isn't going to hold up in court because even just recently the local Chief of Police said it wasn't a crime. They sent Sandusky on his merry way. Only Sandusky was then either fired or else told that he was never going to be coach. IMO, it would have been totally wrong to use the outcome of the case as a crutch.

It's understandable that victims of these type of crimes have difficulty in talking about the acts. Discussing it brings back the memories, so they are most likely in denial. See below link.

On a side not, when the PSU mess broke out there was a lot of discussion about things on the football and women's bb site. Far less on this site. Now there is essentially nothing being discussed about PSU on any of the forums.

With the news at Syracuse, I expected things to be active on the men's bb site. I was surprised to see minimum discussion on the football and women's bb site. I cut and pasted this link to the women's board and didn't get one response regarding it. I'm wondering if the shock and outrage is now turning into exhaustion regarding the subject matter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/penn-state...victim-prompts/story?id=14995900#.TtU8pRw85Y4

 

[UConnCat]

By the way, Syracuse PD did NOT do an investigation. They should have. Neither did the PD in State College (they did one in 1998, not 2002). The university investigated in 2002 just as Syracuse investigated in 2005. They even interviewed Sandusky about the charges. Here's the kicker about what wasn't in the Grand Jury report at PSU. Sandusky admitted he was in the shower with the boy and even gave the investigators the name of the boy. The boy said then and he says now that nothing happened. All of this went up before the grand jury and it's surely in the unreleased GJ transcripts. Ultimately, the GJ believed McQueary over Sandusky, the boy/man (now), Curley and Schultz.

This is quite a paragraph. Do you have a source for this information? You say Sandusky told "investigators" the name of the boy in the shower? What investigators? There was no investigation of the 2002 shower incident unless you consider Curley and Schultz to be investigators. Moreover, this directly contradicts the Grand Jury's finding that it did not know the identity of the boy from the 2002 incident and that there was no investigation conducted by any institution. Sandusky's lawyer even said that the Atty Gen and GJ didn't know the identity of the boy. Yet, you're saying the boy said nothing happened? He said this to the Grand Jury? Sorry for all the questions but this is all news to me and I thought I'd followed this case pretty closely. Please provide a link for this information.

BTW, all Grand Jury transcripts are kept under seal. Information about GJ testimony comes from a Grand Jury Presentment (as in this case) or by way of anonymous leaks. Where are you getting information that "surely [is] in the unreleased GJ transcripts?"

 

[upstater]

upstater: what are you so worried about? the feds are now involved in both cases. the feds basically never lose. you should feel fulfilled that justice will be served and be patient as the process plays out. to the contrary, you are obsessed with playing internet sleuth like you understand everything and no one else knows anything. where does that come from?

Bah! A bunch of bunk. Look in the mirror, end your denial.

 

[upstater]

This is quite a paragraph. Do you have a source for this information? You say Sandusky told "investigators" the name of the boy in the shower? What investigators? There was no investigation of the 2002 shower incident unless you consider Curley and Schultz to be investigators. Moreover, this directly contradicts the Grand Jury's finding that it did not know the identity of the boy from the 2002 incident and that there was no investigation conducted by any institution. Sandusky's lawyer even said that the Atty Gen and GJ didn't know the identity of the boy. Yet, you're saying the boy said nothing happened? He said this to the Grand Jury? Sorry for all the questions but this is all news to me and I thought I'd followed this case pretty closely. Please provide a link for this information.

BTW, all Grand Jury transcripts are kept under seal. Information about GJ testimony comes from a Grand Jury Presentment (as in this case) or by way of anonymous leaks. Where are you getting information that "surely [is] in the unreleased GJ transcripts?"

This info comes from Curley and Schultz's lawyers. I offer it but then qualify that I think they are lying. Yes, Schultz investigated, in the same fashion that he investigated 1998, but in 2002, he didn't go far beyond talking to Sandusky and banning him from bringing children to campus. Yes, the lawyers say Schultz was given the name of the child and he interviewed him. I know this stuff is new. It was on the PSU BWI website in the last week. Also, I didn't say the boy testified. The attorney made it seem as though Schultz testified to this, and now claims are being made by Sandusky's attorney that the same boy with the same name given to Schultz will appear as a defense witness for Sandusky. I don't know the timeline for all this in terms of when the boy was interviewed by Schultz or whether it could be he same boy. I don't believe Sandusky at all.

That being said, I only asked the question as a hypothetical to show that the lack of criminal charges in 1998 or even the possibility he could get off for 2002 does NOT absolve Paterno of his wrongful choices. PSU fans are making it out that Paterno will be absolved when the proper information about the investigation (and lack of criminal evidence) comes out. As people who aren't serving on a jury, we can judge the people in charge without determining criminal intent or complicity.

 

[Huskymaniac]

Bah! A bunch of bunk. Look in the mirror, end your denial.

It ain't just a river in Egypt! He is scared to death that Syracuse basketball will fade into obscurity. If the ACC pulls the plug on them, they are screwed.

 

[freescooter]

I have to say that I don't see how Boeheim survives this with any credibility in tact. In fact, if Fine is led out in handcuffs, that will be his last day on the job. Even if there is a failure to prosecute on some technical reason, statute of limitations stuff or something, he is gone. But no matter how it comes out, I just think his credibility is totally shot if any of the ancillary stuff is true. I mean players sleepin gwith a coach's wife, ball boys sleeping with a coach...even if it isn't illegal, it creates a perception of a program that is totally out of control. It is in many ways reminicient of the St Johns scandals that cost Javis his job. A sleaze factor so to speak.