Paterno stripped of 111 wins....right or wrong?

[Makalakumu]

While this may not meet the legal definition of the term, there is a moral duty to act on the part of everyone involved. If someone accuses your close friend of something absolutely sick, you have a duty to investigate the situation completely and report it to the authorities if it is an accusation that crosses the line from administrative to criminal. Some situations are gray and complex. This isn't one of them. JoePa had a clear obligation to act and he did not.

And that's something I just don't understand. Why didn't all of these people who knew, say something? What motivation would any of these people have to engage in this cover-up? People keep saying football was the reason, but I don't buy it. Football is just a g-d game!

Also, I don't understand why the government can't just prosecute everyone involved. Why punish the school itself? Shouldn't all of the people involved be held legally and civilly liable? Its almost as if the focus is being shifted to the school so individuals can escape notice.

 

[WC_lun]

Football at that level is not just a game. It is money for the university and lots of it. That does not excuse those guilty of covering it up, but the game itself is not the reason for the cover up. The NCAA's response anf punishment has nothing to do with the government. It was to be expected that the NCAA would hand down harsh penalties. They want to make an example of Penn State, so that anyone else at another school thinking of pulling anything similiar will see it is going to be worse for the school in the long run to cover up wrong doing.

 

[Makalakumu]

Football at that level is not just a game. It is money for the university and lots of it. That does not excuse those guilty of covering it up, but the game itself is not the reason for the cover up. The NCAA's response anf punishment has nothing to do with the government. It was to be expected that the NCAA would hand down harsh penalties. They want to make an example of Penn State, so that anyone else at another school thinking of pulling anything similiar will see it is going to be worse for the school in the long run to cover up wrong doing.

Let me see if I can articulate my thought a little clearer. I don't think football could be a motivating reason for so many people to risk so much to cover this up. This was probably a child rape/prostitution ring. It wouldn't surprise me if Sandusky was pimping out boys to wealthy pedo donors. There is no way Sandusky got away with this for so long and with so many people knowing without it going DEEP.

That said, think about what is being said between the lines with the NCAA's punishments. Football is being blamed for the cover-up. The program needs to be punished so other programs won't cover up something like this...for football.

Sorry, no, this is just another cover-up. Everyone involved needs to be arrested. Victims need to sue for damages. If the University goes bankrupt, so be it. That would be justice and THAT would send a message to the sick pedo rings out there.

 

[elder999]

Sorry, no, this is just another cover-up. Everyone involved needs to be arrested. Victims need to sue for damages. If the University goes bankrupt, so be it. That would be justice and THAT would send a message to the sick pedo rings out there.

Then there's this:

Philadelphia Church Official Sentenced to at Least 3 Years in Prison
Msgr. William J. Lynn, the first Roman Catholic official in the United States to be convicted of covering up sexual abuses by priests under his supervision, was sentenced to three to six years in prison on Tuesday.

 

[punisher73]

Are we moving on now to talk about the NCAA process? Okay. Sure. I do have a problem with the sanctions idea. The people involved should be canned and suspensions for students who are involved. But punishing an entire student body, including students who benefit from the football or basketball teams only in terms of being able to participate in less lucrative sports or activities or research only because of the money generated by the high visibility football/basketball teams. When a football program is sanctioned long term, it punishes the entire university, including many kids who just want a quality education who may not even have been students at the time of the infraction. And often, the sanctions persist long after the people involved are gone. They are often fired or resign and move on, leaving a wake of destruction in their path.

I think this is the problem, seperating the two. PSU's sanctions are for the football program only and does not include all their sports programs. 1) Can not play in any post season game for 4 years 2) Scholarships are dropped from 25 to 15 and 3) ANY player can transfer to another school and play immediately.

I just don't see the point in wiping off 111 wins that happened and everyone knows they happened. It's stupid and serves no purpose to what happened.

As far as anyone involved, I agree, they should be fired and prosecuted. I'm not a JoePa fan and not a PSU fan before this. But, the sceptic in me wonders why none of this was brought out before he died. Was it to still protect him, or is it easier to throw him under the bus since he's dead and they can't go after him.

What's really f-ed up is that Sandusky is still paid his retirement from PSU!

 

[ballen0351]

Would the cover up have happened if it were a science teacher? I doubt it. It happened because the football team makes the school over 60 million a year in profits. Recruiting is huge business and any slight black eye can effect future classes and future profits. So in order to save the program they tried to hide it. Penn state football is the 4 the most profitable football program in the country that's the motivation to cover it up. So that's why the football program was punished. Your not punishing the current athletes they still get to play or they can transfer without penalty to a new school to play.

 

[oftheherd1]

Would the cover up have happened if it were a science teacher? I doubt it. It happened because the football team makes the school over 60 million a year in profits. Recruiting is huge business and any slight black eye can effect future classes and future profits. So in order to save the program they tried to hide it. Penn state football is the 4 the most profitable football program in the country that's the motivation to cover it up. So that's why the football program was punished. Your not punishing the current athletes they still get to play or they can transfer without penalty to a new school to play.

That is so. But what bothers me is that even if they had covered up what had happened, why did they allow it to keep happening? as they seem to have done from earlier reporting.

 

[ballen0351]

That is so. But what bothers me is that even if they had covered up what had happened, why did they allow it to keep happening? as they seem to have done from earlier reporting.

Because once you hide it once you know your wrong and they didn't want to get in trouble. Kinda like the one lie turns to 2 lies which turns into 3 lies ect ect. When they caught him in the shower he didn't even try to get the kid to safety he just slammed a locker and walked out. How does anyone do that. How do you leave a kid and not save him

 

[jks9199]

I personally would feel better if the investigation were published, or given some credibility beyond Mr. Freeh said so. I don't mean anything against him, but what he is reported to have said, and on what established evidence, is different than what some, such as the media, or those accused, might want to verify or take issue with.

The Freeh Report; it's 267 pages.

A few bits from the Executive Summary and other introductory portions follow:

No party interfered with, or attempted to influence, the findings in this report. The Special Investigative Counsel revealed this report and the findings herein to the Board of Trustees and the general public at the same time. No advance copy was provided to the Board or to any other person outside of the Special Investigative Counsel's team, and the work product was not shared with anyone who was not part of the Special Investigative Counsel's team.

The most saddening finding by the Special Investigative Counsel is the total and consistent disregard by the most senior leaders at Penn State for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims.

Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University - President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno - failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky's victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001. Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child's identity, of what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001. These individuals, unchecked by the Board of Trustees that did not perform its oversight duties, empowered Sandusky to attract potential victims to the campus and football events by allowing him to have continued, unrestricted and unsupervised access to the University's facilities and affiliation with the University's prominent football program. Indeed, that continued access provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims. Some coaches, administrators and football program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors and no one warned the public about him

Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley gave the following reasons for taking no action to identify the February 9, 2001 child victim and for not reporting Sandusky to the authorities: ? Through counsel, Curley and Schultz stated that the "humane" thing to do in 2001 was to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations. According to their counsel, these men were good people trying to do their best to make the right decisions.2
? Paterno told a reporter that "I didn't know exactly how to handle it and 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. It didn't work out that way."3
? Spanier said, in his interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, that he never heard a report from anyone that Sandusky was engaged in any sexual abuse of children. He also said that if he had known or suspected that Sandusky was abusing children, he would have been the first to intervene.4 Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, the Special Investigative Counsel finds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the University - Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the University's Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large. The avoidance of the consequences of bad publicity is the most significant, but not the only, cause for this failure to protect child victims and report to authorities. The investigation also revealed:
? A striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the University. A failure by the Board to exercise its oversight functions in 1998 and 2001 by not having regular reporting procedures or committee structures in place to ensure disclosure to the Board of major risks to the University.
? A failure by the Board to make reasonable inquiry in 2011 by not demanding details from Spanier and the General Counsel about the nature and direction of the grand jury investigation and the University's response to the investigation.
? A President who discouraged discussion and dissent.
?A lack of awareness of child abuse issues, the Clery Act, and whistleblower policies and protections.
? A decision by Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley to allow Sandusky to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child predator, but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy, with future "visibility" at Penn State and ways "to continue to work with young people through Penn State," essentially granting him license to bring boys to campus facilities for "grooming" as targets for his assaults. Sandusky retained unlimited access to University facilities until November 2011.
? A football program that did not fully participate in, or opted out, of some University programs, including Clery Act compliance. Like the rest of the University, the football program staff had not been trained in their Clery Act responsibilities and most had never heard of the Clery Act.
? A culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community.

 

[jks9199]

In other words -- everything seems to suggest that somewhere along the way, the football program and Joe Paterno became more important than the children that got abused.

The sanctions seem reasonable to me. They need to be big enough and serious enough to make it clear to any other school that they cannot let this sort of thing happen again.

And I want to see the campus and local police authorities that failed to investigate some of the reports along the way investigated themselves, and, if appropriate, prosecuted. They failed to protect children. To save a freakin' football program some embarrassment, apparently.

 

[Tgace]

When college sports started raking in millions in profits (the $60 mil fine is rumored to be ONE years profit from football)...wasn't the stage set for cover ups like this?

Ive never been a huge sports fan (Id rather do than "fan"), but when that much cash is tied to one school program you have nothing but trouble brewing. $60 mill a year and are tuition bills getting any less? Doubt it.

 

[Master Dan]

Money wise there is already games set up without the bowl that nets $350 million so $60 million does not hurt that much what does good is the message to all universities to have zero tolerance of this issue to bad it does not work for the Olympics bad record there in many sports. The civil suits will probably top 500 million given the bench mark of the Catholic church settlements

 

[ks - learning to fly]

This is from the 'Business Insider' web-page: Before he passed away, Paterno said he "backed away and turned [the case] over to some other people," and that he "didn't know exactly how to handle [the situation]." He added that he was "afraid to do something that might jeopardize [university procedure]."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-...-the-penn-state-cover-up-2012-7#ixzz21bz9KYDn

This is and was a terribly unfortunate situation....but to trample on a man's reputation because he did what he thought he should do and then to be caught in the middle of a scandal - not of his own doing - but because of the actions of another is wrong. Sandusky was the criminal...leave JoePa alone and let him rest in peace.

 

[ballen0351]

This is from the 'Business Insider' web-page: Before he passed away, Paterno said he "backed away and turned [the case] over to some other people," and that he "didn't know exactly how to handle [the situation]." He added that he was "afraid to do something that might jeopardize [university procedure]."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-...-the-penn-state-cover-up-2012-7#ixzz21bz9KYDn

This is and was a terribly unfortunate situation....but to trample on a man's reputation because he did what he thought he should do and then to be caught in the middle of a scandal - not of his own doing - but because of the actions of another is wrong. Sandusky was the criminal...leave JoePa alone and let him rest in peace.

Any person that's told about a "sexual act" between a grown man and a kid in a shower and his first thought is I dont want to mess up anyone's weekend so I'll wait until Monday to tell anyone is not a man in my book.
The report also had emails from university president saying after talking with Joe we decided the honorable thing to do is not to report the incident at this time. He could have stopped this and choose not to he deserves no rest.

 

[WC_lun]

Joe Paterno preached to his football team to do the right thing, especially when it is difficult to do. That was one of the reason football players chose to go to Penn State. when it came time for Mr Paterno to practice what he preached, showing his players an example of his preaching, he failed miserably and kids got abused because of it. No one destroyed Joe Paterno's reputation but Joe Paterno.

 

[jks9199]

This is from the 'Business Insider' web-page: Before he passed away, Paterno said he "backed away and turned [the case] over to some other people," and that he "didn't know exactly how to handle [the situation]." He added that he was "afraid to do something that might jeopardize [university procedure]."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-...-the-penn-state-cover-up-2012-7#ixzz21bz9KYDn

This is and was a terribly unfortunate situation....but to trample on a man's reputation because he did what he thought he should do and then to be caught in the middle of a scandal - not of his own doing - but because of the actions of another is wrong. Sandusky was the criminal...leave JoePa alone and let him rest in peace.

Everything clearly points to his understanding that there was at the very least a major concern, and he failed to act effectively on it. As head coach, he is responsible for the culture that effectively made people afraid to come forward and report it. I'd be more willing to give him a break had he, for example, made it absolutely clear to all the staff that under no circumstances was Sandusky to be allowed to be alone with kids. Sandusky WAS the criminal; Paterno enabled him.

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...candal-rumors-sandusky-pimping_n_1086099.html

Here's an article on the subject I brought up before. Sandusky was pimping out little boys?

 

[oftheherd1]

Let me see if I can articulate my thought a little clearer. I don't think football could be a motivating reason for so many people to risk so much to cover this up. This was probably a child rape/prostitution ring. It wouldn't surprise me if Sandusky was pimping out boys to wealthy pedo donors. There is no way Sandusky got away with this for so long and with so many people knowing without it going DEEP.

That said, think about what is being said between the lines with the NCAA's punishments. Football is being blamed for the cover-up. The program needs to be punished so other programs won't cover up something like this...for football.

Sorry, no, this is just another cover-up. Everyone involved needs to be arrested. Victims need to sue for damages. If the University goes bankrupt, so be it. That would be justice and THAT would send a message to the sick pedo rings out there.

That's an interesting supposition. It does seem that people who engage in sexual activities that are not accepted by the majority, tend to look for others who hold the same standards, both to share in a protected way, and to validate their activities. However, I haven't heard anything that suggests such a possibility.

Because once you hide it once you know your wrong and they didn't want to get in trouble. Kinda like the one lie turns to 2 lies which turns into 3 lies ect ect. When they caught him in the shower he didn't even try to get the kid to safety he just slammed a locker and walked out. How does anyone do that. How do you leave a kid and not save him

I don't condon lack of protection. But remember the asst coach was not a police person. What percentage of times have you seen that in your police career? He saw a person he may well have respected very much up to that point, and may have suspected his reporting it would cause a circling of the wagons; which in fact happened. He could expect he might loose much favor, and even be fired.

Besides that, reportedly many football programs from grade school on, bend the rules for a lot of personal behavior and lack of study. I don't know that to be true, but it is often alluded to. Maybe someone here in the forums who played football from grade school to college can comment on whether or not that was true in their experience. But if it is, how do people learn where to draw the line?

In other words -- everything seems to suggest that somewhere along the way, the football program and Joe Paterno became more important than the children that got abused.

The sanctions seem reasonable to me. They need to be big enough and serious enough to make it clear to any other school that they cannot let this sort of thing happen again.

And I want to see the campus and local police authorities that failed to investigate some of the reports along the way investigated themselves, and, if appropriate, prosecuted. They failed to protect children. To save a freakin' football program some embarrassment, apparently.

I can't and won't argue with any of that. But it isn't just the football program. Higher education is a business, and they wish to survive and grow as a business. Many businesses could be expected to react the same way to protect the "brand." It isn't right, but it is done.

What always amazes me is how often people or institutions attempt to cover things up, when there are so many high-profile examples of things coming out after all, and the extra attention given when it is discovered there has not only been an offense, but a cover up.

This is from the 'Business Insider' web-page: Before he passed away, Paterno said he "backed away and turned [the case] over to some other people," and that he "didn't know exactly how to handle [the situation]." He added that he was "afraid to do something that might jeopardize [university procedure]."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-...-the-penn-state-cover-up-2012-7#ixzz21bz9KYDn

This is and was a terribly unfortunate situation....but to trample on a man's reputation because he did what he thought he should do and then to be caught in the middle of a scandal - not of his own doing - but because of the actions of another is wrong. Sandusky was the criminal...leave JoePa alone and let him rest in peace.

The bolded portion could be accepted so as to protect the ability to find the truth and successfully prosecute. But after a certain point, even if that were true, one must be seen as continuing to push for a proper investigation which gathers sufficient facts to prove or disprove, or even say there isn't enough evidence to come to a conclusion. Apparently, Joe Paterno did not do that. If that is the case, how can he be defended?

And I find it hard to believe he did not know of the Cleary Act. Colleges and Universities tend to be pretty proficient at ensuring staff and faculty are aware of such things. It's another part of business survival; being able to show due diligence in advising all of laws that must be complied with. Paterno's problem arises from how much he should have pushed to ensure something was being done about the allegation. At some point in time it would seem proper that he should have made inquiries and took steps to protect the college by prohibiting Sandusky from coming on campus, or from bringing young boys on campus, or requiring he have adult supervision if he did.

 

[sfs982000]

If the administration on the team knowingly covered this up, my personal opinion is that they correctly stripped the college of any official record, and they should clean house completely. Every single one of them should be fired. After that, I would say the NAACP shouldn't penalize the kids. Hire new staff and let them play ball.

I totally agree with you on this Steve. The players to our knowledge had no part in the cover up and shouldn't be punished for it.

 

[Steve]

This is from the 'Business Insider' web-page: Before he passed away, Paterno said he "backed away and turned [the case] over to some other people," and that he "didn't know exactly how to handle [the situation]." He added that he was "afraid to do something that might jeopardize [university procedure]."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-...-the-penn-state-cover-up-2012-7#ixzz21bz9KYDn

This is and was a terribly unfortunate situation....but to trample on a man's reputation because he did what he thought he should do and then to be caught in the middle of a scandal - not of his own doing - but because of the actions of another is wrong. Sandusky was the criminal...leave JoePa alone and let him rest in peace.

For most rational adults, an instinctive protective impulse kicks in when you see or hear about a child in peril. While some may react more strongly than others, most sane, rational, responsible adults would REACT. I still contend that he had a duty to act and he failed the child in question and every child who was molested after that child. He's as responsible as the getaway driver in a bank robbery.