A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
mojo wrote:Saw on CNN that the coach who witnessed the rape and did nothing will be coaching this weekend's game and has not resigned nor been asked to thus far. WTF?
Correct, and this makes it quite clear that the board of trustee's decision last night had less to do with cleaning up the program and much more to do with PR damage control.
For those keeping score at home, the guy who saw Sandusky raping a 10 year old boy and failed to report it to the police still has his job. The guy who only heard about his friend's awful shower activities from a second hand source - but reported it to the head of the university police department nonetheless - was immediately terminated.
You've really got to be kidding us all.
"the guy"?
I ain't.
I'm not sure what you're taking issue with re: my use of "the guy." It's a gender-appropriate descriptor, no?
If you wish to attach the moniker "the guy" to Joe Paterno....the entirety of Penn State Football then so be it. It's incredibly naive.
mojo wrote:Saw on CNN that the coach who witnessed the rape and did nothing will be coaching this weekend's game and has not resigned nor been asked to thus far. WTF?
I am not at all certain (to myself) what to think of McQueary. He was obviously shocked by what he saw and was in a personally difficult situation. Yes, it would have been good to have him stop the incident, but that is much easier said from our vantage point than from the situation. I think he had no legal obligation to do that (read the report). He did, semi-immediately report it to the biggest power in the whole business, in detail according to him and the Grand Jury thinks his version is the most credible. He then reported it in detail to the next line of official bosses, one of whom was the HEAD OF CAMPUS POLICE. That can easily be interpreted as having told the legal authorities.
As for firing him, that action may need to be held in abeyance because he is in the position of the whistle-blower; without him there would be a more difficult case to put together.
As far as I can tell, there was no link within the investigation that pointed a finger at him, he testified to the Grand Jury. May be what happened is that the 2008 case led to calling in the big wigs and in that process they got to the 2002 case, since that is the point where they 'took his keys away' and told him no more kids on campus....
Question. The grand jury started in 2008 (late) or 2009, right? Once Sandusky was identified wouldn't he be a risk to let him continue to prey on kids? There is no link to anything that happened after the 2008 report, so does that mean that they brought Sandusky in and having identified him is was clear that: 1) he was being watched; 2) the cost of anything new would be immediate and thus; 3) they deemed it not too high a risk to continue to investigate in secret. I note that he is now forbidden to be alone with his three young (<10) grandchildren.
gh wrote:Just heard a report on the radio that McQ has been asked not to appear on the field on Saturday.
They didn't say one way or another, but my immediate reaction was that it was because they didn't want any of the "guilty" people representing the university, but now I'm wondering if after the pro-Joe rally got a bit rough last night, and if he's viewed as a whistle-blower, if they fear for his safety from those zealots?
gh wrote:Just heard a report on the radio that McQ has been asked not to appear on the field on Saturday.
They didn't say one way or another, but my immediate reaction was that it was because they didn't want any of the "guilty" people representing the university, but now I'm wondering if after the pro-Joe rally got a bit rough last night, and if he's viewed as a whistle-blower, if they fear for his safety from those zealots?
Someone on ESPN just said that they are afraid for his safety.
Conor Dary wrote:I saw that yesterday, but Paterno was dominating the news yesterday. I suspect it will get a lot more attention soon. This whole story will only get more sordid.
I wouldn't be surprised their game with Nebraska is forfeited Saturday...
One has to think that even if they get through the rest of the regular season, that they would not get a bowl bid, or if they must get a bid for contractual reasons, there would be huge pressure on them to decline it.
If things get worse, can the Big Ten seek to make them leave the conference - even if that is unfair to their other sports programs?
My brother and I were discussing the Big Ten kicking them out last night. I wouldn't be surprised some Big Ten officials are of the same mind....Who wants to be dragged down in the mud...
gh wrote:Just heard a report on the radio that McQ has been asked not to appear on the field on Saturday.
They didn't say one way or another, but my immediate reaction was that it was because they didn't want any of the "guilty" people representing the university, but now I'm wondering if after the pro-Joe rally got a bit rough last night, and if he's viewed as a whistle-blower, if they fear for his safety from those zealots?
Someone on ESPN just said that they are afraid for his safety.
I am amazed they are still talking about playing this game...the season is over....
Dutra wrote:Paterno was the football program. . . . He was the top of the chain and chose to do very little with it. It was his job to find out what was going on.
Let me see, Sandusky was no longer a coach with the school, nor had been since 1999. Had access to the university but was not part of the football program, not an employee, not a coach . . for 3 years running at that time. Paterno heard something was amiss and took it to the person who was responsible for an incident like this. Sandusky was someone who was no longer under his charge.
Dutra wrote:If you don't think there was enough smoke to have Joe make a better effort to figure it out then you are naive.
I never said that Joe could not have done better. I said I could feel sympathy for him in making a mistake in judgment for someone who may have been a close friend. If he knew a rape occurred then I believe he should and WOULD have done more. I don't believe he knew the full gravity of the situation. If he did know and did nothing, then shame on him and he deserves the wrath people are giving him.
The simple fact is the grand jury "evidence" that McQueary gave was not the same "evidence" that Paterno gave. The actions subsequent to this meeting seem to me to favor more of what Joe said than McQueary. McQueary does nothing though he had more information than anyone, allegedly. Paterno takes what he knows to his supervisor, and the person that had the authority for handling the situation for the university. In my opinion, if Paterno knew the gravity of what was going on he would have done more, not cover it up.
I think Sandusky probably convinced him there was a misunderstanding of what McQueary saw and Paterno mistakenly believed him and did not follow up enough, though he did report the incident.
I never have said that he did not have fault or shared blame. I simply do not choose to crucify someone before all facts are known. You think you know all the facts, I don't. I think there is plenty more to come to light and that McQueary has not been forthright in all he has said, in part based on his actions and the actions of others after the incident. I may be naive, so may you. One thing is clear, you are certainly much more vindictive than I am.
And, in response to a later post, I have no close ties to Paterno, I am not a fan of Penn State. I was hoping he would retire anyway. I am simply unwilling to go along with the rest of the media driven sheep to castigate him. Many of you appear to believe he is bad as Sandusky and should be treated the same. Even Sandusky deserves his day in court.
Sandusky deserves his day in civil court. The world moves forward with what it knows. There have been enough things starting to filter out that seem to indicate that this stuff was semi-common rumor in the area that there was a coverup either implicitly or explicitly. The outrage is driven in part by these possibilities, which do not seem particularly far fetched given their apparent sources (Penn State alums famous in football, etc.).
If some people are intent on 'harming' McQueary (silencing him, and implicitly sending a silencing signal to anyone else that might testify) then it makes those other rumors seem a little more realistic. Do you feel/think any differently about this than you did Saturday evening or whenever you first heard things?
Dutra wrote:If you wish to attach the moniker "the guy" to Joe Paterno....the entirety of Penn State Football then so be it. It's incredibly naive.
You must be privy to some alternate definition of the word of which I am unaware. You're grinding a very strange axe here.
Dutra's post is too cryptic for me because I can't figure out what he's getting at either. For one thing, you didn't use "the guy" to refer to Paterno in you previous post. And another thing, so what if you did? What's the point?
Dutra wrote:Paterno was the football program. . . . He was the top of the chain and chose to do very little with it. It was his job to find out what was going on.
Let me see, Sandusky was no longer a coach with the school, nor had been since 1999. Had access to the university but was not part of the football program, not an employee, not a coach . . for 3 years running at that time. Paterno heard something was amiss and took it to the person who was responsible for an incident like this. Sandusky was someone who was no longer under his charge.
Dutra wrote:If you don't think there was enough smoke to have Joe make a better effort to figure it out then you are naive.
I never said that Joe could not have done better. I said I could feel sympathy for him in making a mistake in judgment for someone who may have been a close friend. If he knew a rape occurred then I believe he should and WOULD have done more. I don't believe he knew the full gravity of the situation. If he did know and did nothing, then shame on him and he deserves the wrath people are giving him.
The simple fact is the grand jury "evidence" that McQueary gave was not the same "evidence" that Paterno gave. The actions subsequent to this meeting seem to me to favor more of what Joe said than McQueary. McQueary does nothing though he had more information than anyone, allegedly. Paterno takes what he knows to his supervisor, and the person that had the authority for handling the situation for the university. In my opinion, if Paterno knew the gravity of what was going on he would have done more, not cover it up.
I think Sandusky probably convinced him there was a misunderstanding of what McQueary saw and Paterno mistakenly believed him and did not follow up enough, though he did report the incident.
I never have said that he did not have fault or shared blame. I simply do not choose to crucify someone before all facts are known. You think you know all the facts, I don't. I think there is plenty more to come to light and that McQueary has not been forthright in all he has said, in part based on his actions and the actions of others after the incident. I may be naive, so may you. One thing is clear, you are certainly much more vindictive than I am.
And, in response to a later post, I have no close ties to Paterno, I am not a fan of Penn State. I was hoping he would retire anyway. I am simply unwilling to go along with the rest of the media driven sheep to castigate him. Many of you appear to believe he is bad as Sandusky and should be treated the same. Even Sandusky deserves his day in court.
I think you have been watching too much 'media victim' coverage on Fox news.
SQUACKEE wrote:There is a big differance between gossip getting around the town in hushed whispers and Coaches talking to the freaking EYEWITNESS! We dont know everything but do we know enough.
I think with the sworn statements we know enough to make a logical conclusion.
Amen! There's a big difference between "believing", "thinking" or "suspecting" and "knowing". McQueary KNOWS what he saw. Paterno KNOWS what McQueary told him he saw.
And that's the difference. McQuery actually witnessed it. Paterno may or may not have understood what he was being told, but regardless he didn't witness it himself(and would be dismissed as hearsay in a court of law). He did what he should have done - relayed the information he had, such as it was, to an administrator. Though I feel he could have done more to encourage those above him to go to the authorities(and why I feel he needed to go), from an employee standpoint he has a helluva case for wrongful termination.
I'm talking about coaches who engaged in embarassing but non-criminal behavior away from the job who were let go.
With Penn State reeling from a child sex abuse scandal,presenting sponsor Cars.com is bailing out of ESPN's Saturday telecast of Nebraska at Penn State from State College, Pa. (12 noon ET).
The automotive sponsor doesn't want its brand associated with a telecast featuring Penn State, which fired coach Joe Paterno Wednesday after former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was indicted on criminal charges of allegedly sexually abusing young boys.
And after all is said and done, further up down the road, it will be back to....business as usual for NCAA football. As George Carlin said, "BUSINESS AS USUAL!" Nothing will change with regard to bad behavior being tolerated until a given incident is SO bad someone HAS to say, "well......shoot......guess we gotta get up off our arses and fire somebody." After that, more business as usual.
A lot of people, including some on the board here, are throwing around the words "conspiracy" and "cover-up." Conspiracies and cover-ups demand action. They take a lot of energy. JoePa didn't have this kind of energy to spend. I think the word that best describes this whole incident is apathy.
JoePa didn't truly care what happened out of his direct line of sight. And when this sordid story ended up in his lap, he did as little as possible to make sure he "met his legal obligation" without destroying his friend (Sandusky) and his program.
Same with the AD and President. They did nothing. They didn't try to buy anyone off or have anyone whacked. They ignored it and hoped it would go away quietly.
This screams apathy, not cover-up. In my mind, apathy is worse. No one involved truly cared about the boys being abused. An attempt at covering it up would, at least, show some admission that what was going on was incredibly heinous. But no one cared. Sad.
With Penn State reeling from a child sex abuse scandal,presenting sponsor Cars.com is bailing out of ESPN's Saturday telecast of Nebraska at Penn State from State College, Pa. (12 noon ET).
The automotive sponsor doesn't want its brand associated with a telecast featuring Penn State, which fired coach Joe Paterno Wednesday after former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was indicted on criminal charges of allegedly sexually abusing young boys.
How much will this end up affecting Penn State's bottom line when all is said and done?
Also, McQueary won't be coaching Saturday, either on the sidelines or in the booth. My guess is that his days of coaching at any level are over with.
PS has become the equivalent of Bernie Madoff...
'a longtime supporter of ESPN College Football, it's important to us that we're building our brand and raising the visibility of our advertisers in a way that celebrates the sport, the dedication of its student athletes and the many reputable universities that field teams. We will still be sponsoring a game this weekend.
Will other advertisers follow? That remains to be seen. The national TV audience should be huge for Saturday's game given the media circus in Happy Valley. But the action of Cars.com could indicate the Penn State brand is becoming radioactive on Madison Avenue, at least temporarily.'
A story in Sports Illustrated said that Price had been seen at a strip club. He allegedly later checked into a local hotel with at least one female exotic dancer from the club. The magazine further alleged Price had sex with one of the strippers, a claim which Price denied, although he acknowledged being intoxicated on the evening in question.
balzonia wrote:A lot of people, including some on the board here, are throwing around the words "conspiracy" and "cover-up." Conspiracies and cover-ups demand action. They take a lot of energy. JoePa didn't have this kind of energy to spend. I think the word that best describes this whole incident is apathy.
JoePa didn't truly care what happened out of his direct line of sight. And when this sordid story ended up in his lap, he did as little as possible to make sure he "met his legal obligation" without destroying his friend (Sandusky) and his program.
Same with the AD and President. They did nothing. They didn't try to buy anyone off or have anyone whacked. They ignored it and hoped it would go away quietly.
This screams apathy, not cover-up. In my mind, apathy is worse. No one involved truly cared about the boys being abused. An attempt at covering it up would, at least, show some admission that what was going on was incredibly heinous. But no one cared. Sad.
You're overlooking the alleged perjury by the A.D. and the vice president. I think that fits in the cover-up category.
A story in Sports Illustrated said that Price had been seen at a strip club. He allegedly later checked into a local hotel with at least one female exotic dancer from the club. The magazine further alleged Price had sex with one of the strippers, a claim which Price denied, although he acknowledged being intoxicated on the evening in question.
What's the cause of termination? Partying too hard? He wasn't even charged with a misdemeaner, and this happened away from the school, in the off-season and out of sight of his team.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A story in Sports Illustrated said that Price had been seen at a strip club. He allegedly later checked into a local hotel with at least one female exotic dancer from the club. The magazine further alleged Price had sex with one of the strippers, a claim which Price denied, although he acknowledged being intoxicated on the evening in question.
What's the cause of termination? Partying too hard?
Personal conduct, which many(most?) professional contracts have in their language.
SQUACKEE wrote: but what I cant understand is after nothing was done why someone didnt come forward for 2 reasons.
1. This isnt going away and it will come out and then all hell is going break loose 2. How could you sleep knowing that doing nothin would result in children being raped
guru wrote:Personal conduct, which many(most?) professional contracts have in their language.
That's a deliberately vague catchall that could emcompass both Price's and Paterno's behavior.
Except Paterno did what he was supposed to - immediately inform his boss. Had he kept his mouth completely shut you might have a leg to stand on.
You know and I know that these personal conduct clauses can mean whatever they want them to mean. As I pointed out earlier, Price did nothing illegal either, but legality has nothing to do with personal conduct clauses.
jazzcyclist wrote: Also, McQueary won't be coaching Saturday, either on the sidelines or in the booth. My guess is that his days of coaching at any level are over with.
Penn State will not dismiss McQueary, because they know if they do they will be sued into insolvency for wrongful termination.
People need to understand there's a difference between professional and moral imperatives.
jazzcyclist wrote: Also, McQueary won't be coaching Saturday, either on the sidelines or in the booth. My guess is that his days of coaching at any level are over with.
Penn State will not dismiss McQueary, because they know if they do they will be sued into insolvency for wrongful termination.
People need to understand there's a difference between professional and moral imperatives.
They can let him go at any time as long as they write him a check for the remainder of time left on his contract. By the way, our discussion on Paterno is probably a moot point since he was in the last year of his contract. They can just scratch him a check for the remaining months also.
balzonia wrote:This screams apathy, not cover-up. In my mind, apathy is worse. No one involved truly cared about the boys being abused. An attempt at covering it up would, at least, show some admission that what was going on was incredibly heinous. But no one cared. Sad.
I think you may be correct in Paterno's case but not the AD and Shultz case. I'm also not so confident that whatever happened around 1998/99 wasn't all a whitewash well known to the University including Paterno. If that ever gets proven, Joe may be in jail.
We can bat this thing around from here to doomsday, spout legal cliches and wallow in moral dilemma but it is really very simple. I don't care crap about university chain of command or policy.
Some basic facts seem to be well established.
Penn State had a pedophile coach on staff.
A grad assistant witnessed him sodomizing a ten year old boy. When the GA turned his back instead of interfering in the rape, he became guilt of complicity in a felony and revealed himself as a wuss. This guy is a college graduate and had to ask his daddy what to do???
When GA told Paterno, who did not instantly pick up the phone and call the police, I don't care what the SOP was, that should not cover Paterno's ass. Paterno became an accomplice and is guilty as sin regardless of the legal niceties.
When Paterno eventually reported the crime to the AD/Police/President who took no action, they joined the cover up and should be prosecuted
When Paterno did not follow up immediately, he compounded his guilt.
Good works and senilty are no excuse. If he had the mental capacity to be a head football coach, he was competent to recognize the severity of the situation.
Yet, Paterno's only action was to try to cover his ass.. temporarily.
Simple? Simply brilliant. I wonder if the Paterno believers would feel differently if it was their son in the shower. I am going with 60% cover up and 40 % apathy.
