OT: Thursday at 9 a.m., the Freeh Report is available. . . | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT: Thursday at 9 a.m., the Freeh Report is available. . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
SubbaBub said:
As for the NCAA, I suggest two years probation to implement the governance reforms outlined in the Freeh report. If not met, a full ban on NCAA participation until they do. A bit more effective in garnering the change everyone wants than taking down a statue or forfeiting some FB games, don't you think? Why two years? So they don't rush just get something in place.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
Expand ...

I think that the idea of probation with additional penalty if restructuring and adequate safe guards are not put in place is an excellent path because it puts the pressure where it needs to be placed on reformation of the university structure, procedures, and administration.

The best suggestion I have heard pertaining to the statue of Joe is that is be moved into the library and placed within a display of all the ways good and bad (the neglect of the events surrounding Jerry Sandusky) Joe impacted the university and community as a lesson that reminds a person of how quickly all the good someone does can be offset and wiped away by one ill conceived act. Removing everything hinting of Joe from campus simply leads to forgetting everything and adds no teaching or lesson learned.
 
Although not necessarily completely agreeing with Ice's position above, the process of judgement of the man seems to be a bit over the top.

In this morning's Washington Post, a columnist wrote:

Paterno’s legacy is no longer stained or tarnished — it is destroyed. Regardless of how many good things he did during his 62 years as a Penn State employee, the tragedy that he failed to stop overwhelms all the good he did. I simply do not believe that history will remember only this horrific set of events but will be able to place in perspective the excellence of his previous record prior to this horrendous occurrence which may very well be seen as a "fatal flaw," as in a Shakespearean tragedy.

Indeed, after careful reading of the report, I cannot find direct evidence that the reason for the leadership's inaction was to prevent bad publicity or to insulate the football program from scandal. That may very well be the case but for now that conclusion strikes me as premature. The electronic mail that Freeh relied on will certainly not be the last evidence although there is some reason to be concerned regarding the coach's representatives being allowed to cull his papers prior to submission.

And certainly, others will be drawn in, the Governor, the Foundation and the Board. Feeh's mandate had limits and as horrendous as the matter now appears, it seems likely that many more were complicit in extending the "silence."
 
msf22b said:
Although not necessarily completely agreeing with Ice's position above, the process of judgement of the man seems to be a bit over the top.

In this morning's Washington Post, a columnist wrote:

Paterno’s legacy is no longer stained or tarnished — it is destroyed. Regardless of how many good things he did during his 62 years as a Penn State employee, the tragedy that he failed to stop overwhelms all the good he did. I simply do not believe that history will remember only this horrific set of events but will be able to place in perspective the excellence of his previous record prior to this horrendous occurrence which may very well be seen as a "fatal flaw," as in a Shakespearean tragedy.

Indeed, after careful reading of the report, I cannot find direct evidence that the reason for the leadership's inaction was to prevent bad publicity or to insulate the football program from scandal. That may very well be the case but for now that conclusion strikes me as premature. The electronic mail that Freeh relied on will certainly not be the last evidence although there is some reason to be concerned regarding the coach's representatives being allowed to cull his papers prior to submission.

And certainly, others will be drawn in, the Governor, the Foundation and the Board. Feeh's mandate had limits and as horrendous as the matter now appears, it seems likely that many more were complicit in extending the "silence."
Expand ...

The Paterno Family would be well advised to hire a professional crisis management firm from here on out...
 
An article in the NY Times analyzes the situation faced by the NCAA and discusses matters like "instutional control" and the suitability of the "death penalty."

One sentence jumped off the page to me: "[T]hose crimes are considered so heinous that there is a widespread view that the N.C.A.A. must do something."

I added emphasis because it happens that I used those exact two words often in earlier when making a case for NCAA punitive action of PSU. The question now seems to focus not on whether PSU should be punished, but how. The alternatives appear to be either the "death penalty" (shut down the PSU football program for some specified period of time) or something else (not yet so clearly defined).
 
msf22b said:
Although not necessarily completely agreeing with Ice's position above, the process of judgement of the man seems to be a bit over the top. * * * Indeed, after careful reading of the report, I cannot find direct evidence that the reason for the leadership's inaction was to prevent bad publicity or to insulate the football program from scandal. That may very well be the case but for now that conclusion strikes me as premature
Expand ...
Agree that the process of judgment on the man in many quarters seems over the top.

I've been of the view since the beginning that JoePa knew more for longer than he let on. I've been of the view that he would've been inclined to avoid damaging publicity, and would likely have exerted his influence in that regard.

I wrote this satirical post last fall aimed at the PSU apologists. Among other things, it posits a conversation between JoePa and Curley in which JoePa advocates letting the chips fall where they may -- within the University walls of course.

Prescient in view of Curley's email about changing his mind about going to the outside authorities after talking with Joe? No. Pretty much common sense. Direct evidence may or may not be forthcoming, but I don't mind expressing a gut feeling in this forum, now backed by at least circumstantial evidence.

Having said that, I share your view that the condemnation of JoePa as having been exposed as evil incarnate -- with a reputation totally and forever destroyed -- is unseemly. The man's life and career should be viewed in their entirety, and we are not yet done putting this episode in perspective.

I feel the same about the vehement wishes of some that State College should be destroyed and salt scattered on the ground like the Romans did at Carthage. Hatred is rarely a helpful emotion, and its focus can become irrationally diffuse to the detriment of the innocent or relatively innocent. That's something good people should be wary of.

Like I said, I've been suspicious of Joe's role in the Sandusky matter all along and have never accepted wagons being drawn around him. By the same token, I don't consider dancing on graves to be an admirable activity.
 
There is a great deal of talk among fans, lawyers and columnists about the legality of the NCAA's potential actions.
I find myself in agreement with Kib...They've got to do something...and if they do, it can't be a slap on the wrist.
The University's board could take the pressure off the NCAA by closing down the season for a year and then resigning.
 
.-.
JS said:
Agree that the process of judgment on the man in many quarters seems over the top.

I've been of the view since the beginning that JoePa knew more for longer than he let on. I've been of the view that he would've been inclined to avoid damaging publicity, and would likely have exerted his influence in that regard.

I wrote this satirical post last fall aimed at the PSU apologists. Among other things, it posits a conversation between JoePa and Curley in which JoePa advocates letting the chips fall where they may -- within the University walls of course.

Prescient in view of Curley's email about changing his mind about going to the outside authorities after talking with Joe? No. Pretty much common sense. Direct evidence may or may not be forthcoming, but I don't mind expressing a gut feeling in this forum, now backed by at least circumstantial evidence.

Having said that, I share your view that the condemnation of JoePa as having been exposed as evil incarnate -- with a reputation totally and forever destroyed -- is unseemly. The man's life and career should be viewed in their entirety, and we are not yet done putting this episode in perspective.

I feel the same about the vehement wishes of some that State College should be destroyed and salt scattered on the ground like the Romans did at Carthage. Hatred is rarely a helpful emotion, and its focus can become irrationally diffuse to the detriment of the innocent or relatively innocent. That's something good people should be wary of.

Like I said, I've been suspicious of Joe's role in the Sandusky matter all along and have never accepted wagons being drawn around him. By the same token, I don't consider dancing on graves to be an admirable activity.
Expand ...
Give me a break. No one is "dancing on his grave"; they're condemning a dispicable act. The fact that this sorry excuse for a human being is dead doesn't absolve him from anything. It just means he desn't have to face the music.

Don't worry- his tradition of protecting his football program over all else lives on in State College...which is exactly why someone from the outside needs to come in and torch it. These cultists haven't done the right thing in decades and they're not about to start now. Joe thought his program and everyone associated with it was above the law- it's time for the NCAA to step in and show them otherwise...if they're not too busy punishing Cal Tech for allowing its students to shop classes early in the semester or something.

The NCAA can pretty much do whatever it wants. They're a nn-governmental regulatory body. Moreover, there's not a jury in America who would rule in favor of Penn State if they tried to sue.

And if the NCAA doesn't have the stones, the rest of CFB should. Refuse to play Penn State. Hell, if I were in the B1G, I might even suggest forfeiting a game rather than play them just to make a point, especially if it was a road game. They need to be taught a lesson; the moronic statements of the BOT regarding even the act of taking down the statue of a pedophile enabler prove it.
 
OneTrickPony said:
The Paterno Family would be well advised to hire a professional crisis management firm from here on out...
Expand ...
The Paterno family would be well advised to be quiet from here on out because they make us all collectively dumber any time one of them opens their mouths.

The Paterno family patriarch enabled child rape. Repeatedly. Over the course of at least 15 years. He let a grown man use the Penn State program, brand, and facilities to single out weak children in need of a father figure and violate them. He was the most powerful person in that community, and he protected his friend and defensive coordinator because beating Miami in the 1986 Fiesta Bowl was more important to him than the physical and mental anguish of children. That is his legacy. Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, and it should be spread around liberally. University administration, BOT, possibly even the current governor of PA (given his negligence in his role of AG at the time) all need to be dragged through the mud too. But others receiving their fair share of blame doesn't absolve JoePa any more than being dead does.
 
My suspicion is the statue will be stolen some night, and let everybody off the hook...
 
alexrgct said:
Give me a break. No one is "dancing on his grave"; they're condemning a dispicable act. The fact that this sorry excuse for a human being is dead doesn't absolve him from anything. It just means he desn't have to face the music.
Expand ...
"Sorry excuse for a human being?" Really, Alex, you must have known him well to say that.

Pretty good example of what I mean when I say over the top. And it goes a bit beyond "condemning a despicable act," eh?

I think he was part of the cover-up (I've said a possibly decisive part) and might well have been indicted had he lived. That'll have to be enough from me for now. We'll see what Curley and Schultz have to say in the civil lawsuits. We probably won't hear from them in the criminal cases.

Don't worry- his tradition of protecting his football program over all else lives on in State College...which is exactly why someone from the outside needs to come in and torch it. * * * The NCAA can pretty much do whatever it wants.

I'm of the view that whatever they may decide to do may be a real expansion of their authority beyond their jurisdiction. That troubles me. And if you say "Give me a break, what's troubling is xyz that happened," I'll say "Give ME a break." There's room to be troubled about lots of things in this matter, and also, incidentally, to be respectful of differing opinions.

Moreover, there's not a jury in America who would rule in favor of Penn State if they tried to sue.

No there isn't. Because it wouldn't be a jury trial. It'd be a contract case tried to a judge.

And if the NCAA doesn't have the stones, the rest of CFB should. Refuse to play Penn State. Hell, if I were in the B1G, I might even suggest forfeiting a game rather than play them just to make a point, especially if it was a road game.

Don't see that as even a remote possibility. Such zealotry does not reside within the major football programs Penn State plays. For them to say "we'll show them that football shouldn't be king" would be like Al Capone lamenting the shady activities of Lucky Luciano.

Don't much care about the statue controversy. The trustees get burned on that one no matter what they do.

The big thing to me is institutional reforms in relation to the reporting laws. Big-time football itself at Penn State and about 25 other schools like it isn't going to change because of this. But fear of the hoosegow can work wonders for the decisions of individuals in lots of organizations who are a position to blow the whistle.
 
.-.
Ozzie Nelson said:
The light of truth…

“"Football runs this university."”

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/us/triponey-paterno-penn-state/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Expand ...

I read that story as well. I thought it was one of the damning pieces of Paterno and the PSU culture. Vicky Triponey sounded very credible about her experience at PSU and challenges wanting to hold the football players accountable for bad behavior. I'm not surprised at all as I saw some of the true Joe when the Sandusky scandal finally went public. Kudos to Vicky for standing up to Joe! Spainer fired her because she was only one of 4 or 5 people who saw the bad side of Joe. That is scary that he fooled so many people for so long.

Also, it was great that ex UConn ftball coach, Edsall said wonderful things about Vicky and how they worked together at UConn, to create a culture where the ftball program and players were to be treated the same as all students. What a concept!
 
The suggestion that other schools, as a matter of principle, should refuse to play PSU -- even forfeit a scheduled game -- is tantamount to calling upon them to take a vow of poverty.

Somehow I just don't believe that is a realistic possibility.
 
I am no less apalled than anyone else about Paterno's behavior. However, this Penn State Culture is throughout the school, not just in the football program. Hiring / promoting from within, believing the answers are within (don't go to outsiders) and of course a concern for how things look. Um, very corporate, certainly likely in other FB programs, and not impossible in other universities as a whole. Very disturbing. Hopefully, although I agree the Trustee's article didn't sound it, there will be change.

As everyone slams these "enablers" left, right and sideways, I just wish folks would realize that, in spite of all the "motives" implied, a portion of the truth it seems to me is simply that "they" never realized the extent of the evil. Partly because they didn't want to, I'm sure. But to give the extensive benefits they gave, and to continue in relationship with Sandusky through last year convinces me they never really "got it" or realized what they had done. Because the report makes clear that these benefits were unrelated to the central issue. And lets be real - of course they were, what do you think, he needed a bribe to keep his mouth shut? He wasn't going to make any trouble, you can be sure of that. These benefits were - because these men could convince themselves that the issue wasn't that bad and therefore could keep it from becoming that bad - the benefits that they gave Jerry because they thought he deserved them.

It doesn't make their actions / inactions any better. But it is a perspective that does factor in.
 
KnightBridgeAZ said:
As everyone slams these "enablers" left, right and sideways, I just wish folks would realize that, in spite of all the "motives" implied, a portion of the truth it seems to me is simply that "they" never realized the extent of the evil. Partly because they didn't want to, I'm sure. * * * It doesn't make their actions / inactions any better. But it is a perspective that does factor in.
Expand ...
Yep. That's where I come down when I try to imagine what was going on in their heads. They told themselves he'd stop after being informed he wouldn't be head football coach but could hang around as a retiree if he behaved himself. Then they told themselves he'd stop after being banned from the football facility and told to get counseling.

But they didn't realize what they were dealing with -- that he couldn't stop, that he was compulsive, that he wouldn't follow through on any promise to "reform," that he needed to be totally and forcibly removed from the opportunity.

And they didn't want, apparently, even to imagine the details of the horror he was inflicting. So it seems they simply blotted that out and, as Freeh said, showed no willingness to identify the victims and find out those details -- which would've required Sandusky's cooperation and, even if they could get it, been an awkward exercise to be sure.

A moral failing? Yes. Does it make them extraordinary or inhuman? No. But do the crime, serve the time.
 
JS said:
Yep. That's where I come down when I try to imagine what was going on in their heads. They told themselves he'd stop after being informed he wouldn't be head football coach but could hang around as a retiree if he behaved himself. Then they told themselves he'd stop after being banned from the football facility and told to get counseling.

But they didn't realize what they were dealing with -- that he couldn't stop, that he was compulsive, that he wouldn't follow through on any promise to "reform," that he needed to be totally and forcibly removed from the opportunity.

And they didn't want, apparently, even to imagine the details of the horror he was inflicting. So it seems they simply blotted that out and, as Freeh said, showed no willingness to identify the victims and find out those details -- which would've required Sandusky's cooperation and, even if they could get it, been an awkward exercise to be sure.

A moral failing? Yes. Does it make them extraordinary or inhuman? No. But do the crime, serve the time.
Expand ...

I would like to think that a woman athletic administrator, school admin, or policewomen, would have acted differently, to think of the victim before themselves, Sandusky, JoePa, or football program.

Money doesn't heal wounds, but I hope each victim gets a BOAT load of money from PSU.
 
cardfan said:
I would like to think that a woman athletic administrator, school admin, or policewomen, would have acted differently, to think of the victim before themselves, Sandusky, JoePa, or football program.

Money doesn't heal wounds, but I hope each victim gets a BOAT load of money from PSU.
Expand ...

That is as unlikely as the men doing. Children who are sexually abused often have more anger at mothers who "should have stopped it." Mrs. Sandusky herself lived in the house with it and either couldn't admit it or lived in deep emotional denial. Youth and Family Services workers see it time and time again that men and women who the outside world thinks should have known and should have done something never see it or at least never take action. Percentages are slightly better for women in some circumstances but most often not significantly.
 
.-.
Icebear said:
That is as unlikely as the men doing. Children who are sexually abused often have more anger at mothers who "should have stopped it." Mrs. Sandusky herself lived in the house with it and either couldn't admit it or lived in deep emotional denial. Youth and Family Services workers see it time and time again that men and women who the outside world thinks should have known and should have done something never see it or at least never take action. Percentages are slightly better for women in some circumstances but most often not significantly.
Expand ...

I'm not talking about the mothers of the victims or Mrs. Sandusky, but a woman official at the school or police dept.
 
cardfan said:
I'm not talking about the mothers of the victims or Mrs. Sandusky, but a woman official at the school or police dept.
Expand ...
Women and men professionals both only report sexual abuse when they are trained properly. Training is the highest indicator of the likelihood of reporting. Most people just don't see it or don't believe it.

Educators are actually the most likely to report child sexual abuse.

In 2002, 56% of reports of alleged child abuse and neglect were made by professionals. The remaining 44% were made by parents, relatives, friends, alleged victims, alleged perpetrators, and anonymous callers. The largest percentage (16.1%) of professional reports were made by educational personnel, followed by legal and law enforcement personnel (15.7%), and social services personnel (12.6%). Medical personnel reports accounted for only 7.8% of professional reports (United States Department of Health and Human Services [US DHHS], 2004).

http://www.slmda.org/artman/uploads/c_ah_-_child_protection_-_child__abuse_-_hcp_looking_away.doc
 
Icebear said:
Women and men professionals both only report sexual abuse when they are trained properly. Training is the highest indicator of the likelihood of reporting. Most people just don't see it or don't believe it.

Educators are actually the most likely to report child sexual abuse.

In 2002, 56% of reports of alleged child abuse and neglect were made by professionals. The remaining 44% were made by parents, relatives, friends, alleged victims, alleged perpetrators, and anonymous callers. The largest percentage (16.1%) of professional reports were made by educational personnel, followed by legal and law enforcement personnel (15.7%), and social services personnel (12.6%). Medical personnel reports accounted for only 7.8% of professional reports (United States Department of Health and Human Services [US DHHS], 2004).

http://www.slmda.org/artman/uploads/c_ah_-_child_protection_-_child__abuse_-_hcp_looking_away.doc
Expand ...

thanks Icebear for the stats. I have a lot of experience in this area, not as a professional, but have seen too much of it, sadly. So, that was my pt, that a woman educator (AD or school admin) or trained policewoman, maybe (I hope and think) would have asked more questions regarding the victim. I read the entire report and didn't see many women, except enablers like Mrs. Sandusky and Mrs. Paterno.
 
The Philadelphia Inquirer is staying on the case.

Two stories this morning focus on the much discussed potential liability of 100M and more interesting, the culpability of the Governor and his go-slow investigation and possible conflicts. It appears that few defense lawyers appear interested in settlement, but rather will demand discovery resulting in the drip, drip, drip of added negative evidence that will color the University for years to come.

IMHO, Perhaps the only way to damp this down is to offer all known victims a quick, above-market settlement (say 12.5 M each) and hope that more victims (anticipated) don't come out of the woodwork.
 
msf22b said:
The Philadelphia Inquirer is staying on the case.

Two stories this morning focus on the much discussed potential liability of 100M and more interesting, the culpability of the Governor and his go-slow investigation and possible conflicts. It appears that few defense lawyers appear interested in settlement, but rather will demand discovery resulting in the drip, drip, drip of added negative evidence that will color the University for years to come.

IMHO, Perhaps the only way to damp this down is to offer all known victims a quick, above-market settlement (say 12.5 M each) and hope that more victims (anticipated) don't come out of the woodwork.
Expand ...


Quick, lucrative settlements will bring people out of the woodwork...
 
.-.
When I started this thread, it was on the eve of the publication of the definitive Freeh report. I stated then that I thought it to be "a bad sign that the Paterno family was discrediting it in advance [of publication]."

The more I hear and read, the more I am astonished at the utter effrontery and sense of entitlement by the Paterno family, including Joe himself before he died.
  • As the wagons were circling on the Sandusky affair, Joe sought and got a $3 million payoff and forgiveness of some $300,000+ in loans.
  • The family sought (and was denied) a luxury box at football games, right next to the president's, for 25 years, plus use of the PSU private plane.
I heard this morning (not yet verified) that there was a time when the PSU administration actually wanted to rename Beaver Stadium and call it Paterno Stadium, but the family did not approve!

Now, the trustees seem to be having difficulty deciding what to do about the Paterno statue. Apparently they are serious in their expectation that all will eventually simply be forgiven, forgotten, or both.

I could not make this stuff up.

As Mark Twain pointed out, fiction writers are constrained to write only about reasonable possibilities, but historians and journalists are not similarly limited.
 
Ten-Fourteen years was "enough time" to “really” understand what was going on. The cover up was done in order protect Penn State interests, which did not include victims.

Simple and naked truth, as I see it.
 
Ozzie Nelson said:
Ten-Fourteen years was "enough time" to “really” understand what was going on. The cover up was done in order protect Penn State interests, which did not include victims.

Simple and naked truth, as I see it.
Expand ...
Maybe longer.

Police are aware of three men who say they were abused in the 1970s or 1980s by now ex-Penn State football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, CNN contributor Sara Ganim reports for the Harrisburg Patriot News.

The allegations are the first to involve claims of abuse by the coach before the 1990s. During Sandusky's child rape trial, his defense argued that it is rare for someone to suddenly become a pedophile in their later years.

Nice argument for the defense. "He wouldn't have just suddenly started doing it in his later years. Therefore he probably didn't."

The first sentence, at least, is quite plausible. The second didn't work out so well with the jury.
 
cardfan said:
... that was my pt, that a woman educator (AD or school admin) or trained policewoman, maybe (I hope and think) would have asked more questions regarding the victim...
Expand ...

Of course, you’re not referring to yet another ‘woman educator’ like the teachers we continue to read about preying sexually on our children in schools.
My impression is neither gender, race, ethnic-ancestry, nor an adult’s age distinguishes those among us possessing the decency, professionalism and courage indicating who ‘would have asked more questions.’ So far, both the most inspiring and the most despicable behavior I’ve observed personally, professionally, and even in the news… seems pretty well spread out in our society - including gender. Certainly everyone’s breadth of observation and point of view differs, often explaining honest differences in conclusions.
 
arty155 said:
Of course, you’re not referring to yet another ‘woman educator’ like the teachers we continue to read about preying sexually on our children in schools.
My impression is neither gender, race, ethnic-ancestry, nor an adult’s age distinguishes those among us possessing the decency, professionalism and courage indicating who ‘would have asked more questions.’ So far, both the most inspiring and the most despicable behavior I’ve observed personally, professionally, and even in the news… seems pretty well spread out in our society - including gender. Certainly everyone’s breadth of observation and point of view differs, often explaining honest differences in conclusions.
Expand ...

Sure, there are men and women who prey on kids in our society. I simply pondered the possibility that a woman leader may have asked more questions about the victim (and victim's mom in 1998) because the people involved in the discussion what to do with Jerry.... were all men.
 
Ozzie Nelson said:
Ten-Fourteen years was "enough time" to “really” understand what was going on. The cover up was done in order protect Penn State interests (and protecting careers of those who chose to remain too quiet, at every level), which did not include victims...
Expand ...

"If you walk by a problem you can influence, you are part of the problem"
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,339
Messages
4,565,617
Members
10,467
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom