Pa. governor sues NCAA over Penn State sanctions

[koolaid]

So punishing the football program is going to far? Even though people in the athletic program knew of the scandal and did nothing? Even though the football program itself was part of the the criminal's tactic to molest children?

No way. Penn state was corrupt to the core and got what they deserve. They made boat loads of profits while championing the morality of their institution. They should be happy they still have a football program.

EDIT: And I do believe covering up this scandal was beneficial to the program as I doubt recruiting or fundraising for the program would have been the same had the truth come out.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

So punishing the football program is going to far? Even though people in the athletic program knew of the scandal and did nothing? Even though the football program itself was part of the the criminal's tactic to molest children?

No way. Penn state was corrupt to the core and got what they deserve. They made boat loads of profits while championing the morality of their institution. They should be happy they still have a football program.

EDIT: And I do believe covering up this scandal was beneficial to the program as I doubt recruiting or fundraising for the program would have been the same had the truth come out.

You obviously are another person who hasn't educated themselves on the difference between NCAA violations and criminal misconduct. Take some time to do that. Also, It wasn't the program that was corrupt. You really have a difficult time separating a few people's actions from thousands of innocent. But keep the hate coming and the ignorance flowing.

 

[joseephuss]

You obviously are another person who hasn't educated themselves on the difference between NCAA violations and criminal misconduct. Take some time to do that. Also, It wasn't the program that was corrupt. You really have a difficult time separating a few people's actions from thousands of innocent. But keep the hate coming and the ignorance flowing.

This falls under the NCAA violations related to institutional control. Also, they have rules about reporting crimes to the proper authorities. And the fact that Penn State accepted the penalties with nary a protest seems to prove that the NCAA had the proper authority to do what they did. You typically fight something if it is wrong, not just gladly accept it and move forward.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

This falls under the NCAA violations related to institutional control.

NCAA did not investigate plus they went outside their own process.

Also, they have rules about reporting crimes to the proper authorities.

Got a link to that that says the university and not the individual is responsible?

And the fact that Penn State accepted the penalties with nary a protest seems to prove that the NCAA had the proper authority to do what they did. You typically fight something if it is wrong, not just gladly accept it and move forward.

Wrong. Happens ALL THE TIME especially when there is a witch hunt on like there was around this.

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

I see you are unable to draw a distinction between an NCAA violation and a crime. So I will just allow you to ramble on without trying to argue with someone who doesn't have the basic understanding of this situation.

So essentially your bringing up the idea of 'justice' was just a lame attempt, as your admitting now, to defend Penn State... isn't justice a moral issue?

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

You seem to missing the point. Do you understand the role of the NCAA or have you read their by-laws?

The NCAA as much right sanctioning Penn State's football team for a criminal matter as the NAACP does of stripping Alabama of their MNC for racism of past coaches.

No, I understand the point. So if a school covers up criminal activity that is rooted in the 'football program', an organization that oversees this program has no moral basis to punish that very school? I mean under what basis could their be support of Paterno other than his win legacy...

 

[StanleySpadowski]

No, I understand the point. So if a school covers up criminal activity that is rooted in the 'football program', an organization that oversees this program has no moral basis to punish that very school? I mean under what basis could their be support of Paterno other than his win legacy...

Again, you want the NCAA to have a "moral" authority.

Criminal activity is the purview of government, not the NCAA. Even if you could somehow stretch NCAA bylaws, thousands of cases have set a precedence regarding NCAA inaction on previous activity. What sanctions did Baylor basketball face? Where is the death penalty for Syracuse due to Fine?

The lynch mob mentality allowed Emmert to make a power play. Now he and the NCAA are going to face the ramifications of their decision as multiple other lawsuits are on the way.

As far as people supporting Paterno, the same legacy that engenders support made him the target. For decades he was among the lowest paid DI coaches and even then donated a large portion of that back to the University and managed to field a competitive team without the same shenanigans that had Penn State joining just a few others as programs that had never had any NCAA sanctions.

 

[joseephuss]

NCAA did not investigate plus they went outside their own process.



Got a link to that that says the university and not the individual is responsible?



Wrong. Happens ALL THE TIME especially when there is a witch hunt on like there was around this.

http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/11/crime-and-punishment/

What happens all the time? Innocent people or organizations just gladly accept punishment without a fight? No, that doesn't happen all the time.

Wouldn't most of this had gone away if you had approached authorities with your inside knowledge of what truly transpired? You bragged about how you knew a person very familiar with the situation who could clear everything up. Why didn't you step up?

 

[Hoofbite]

The NCAA never investigated, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania investigated and have delayed any trials against any Penn State administrators because at this minute they'd lose.

So what investigations are you referring to other that the media firestorm?

I thought the Freeh report was commissioned by the University itself?

This is from the report.

Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan LLP, (“FSS&#8221, was engaged by the Special Investigations Task Force (“Task Force&#8221 on behalf of The Pennsylvania State University’s Board of Trustees (“Board” or “Trustees&#8221a as Special Investigative Counsel on November 21, 2011. As Special Investigative Counsel, FSS was asked to perform an independent, full and complete investigation of:

Here's a link to the report

http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

The sanction agreement says plainly that conducting another investigation would be a waste of time as this report was on behalf of the University.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

 

[StanleySpadowski]

I thought the Freeh report was commissioned by the University itself?

This is from the report.



Here's a link to the report

http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

The sanction agreement says plainly that conducting another investigation would be a waste of time as this report was on behalf of the University.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

Freeh himself stated that his report should not have been used by the NCAA.

The Freeh report is a joke in and of itself. It's purpose was to justify the BOT's actions in firing Paterno. Freeh never interviewed any of the principals involved, even turning down a request from Paterno for one. It's also riddled with inaccuracies. Due to an computer issue, very few emails from the timeframe were available. Freeh tried to piece together conversations with only bits and pieces. Some emails referring to Jerry in the report are now understood to reference Jerry Dunn, another coach at the time, on a completely separate topic, the "coach" emails were inferred to mean Paterno although no one called him coach to reach conclusions rather than facts.

Curley and Schultz' attorneys now have information that was gathered by Freeh but not included in the report and that's the primary reason their trials have been delayed.

Penn State's BOT thought at the time that openess was the best policy so the Freeh report was made public. If there was a lesson to be learned by other institutions, it's that obfuscation is the way to deal with the NCAA in the future.

 

[joseephuss]

Freeh never interviewed any of the principals involved, even turning down a request from Paterno for one. It's also riddled with inaccuracies.

Is that accurate? I have read quite a bit on the report and never saw where they turned down an interview with Paterno.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Is that accurate? I have read quite a bit on the report and never saw where they turned down an interview with Paterno.

Yes, Curley and Schultz weren't interviewed due to their perjury charges but Paterno was not facing any charges and according to his family, requested to meet with Freeh. The request fell on deaf ears.

I'd also like to add that Freeh never interviewed McQueary either.

 

[joseephuss]

Yes, Curley and Schultz weren't interviewed due to their perjury charges but Paterno was not facing any charges and according to his family, requested to meet with Freeh. The request fell on deaf ears.

That is not what I have seen reported. I have seen that there were plans to meet with Paterno, but his health issues are what prevented the meeting from ever taking place. That is not the same as falling on deaf hears. Paterno was diagnosed with lung cancer on November 18, 2011. Freeh was hired to investigate the matter on November 21, 2011.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/11/crime-and-punishment/

What happens all the time? Innocent people or organizations just gladly accept punishment without a fight? No, that doesn't happen all the time.

Wouldn't most of this had gone away if you had approached authorities with your inside knowledge of what truly transpired? You bragged about how you knew a person very familiar with the situation who could clear everything up. Why didn't you step up?

Care to elaborate on what the hell you are talking about? I said I knew someone at a newspaper who was involved in the original story. Also they knew something about the case and how it was connected to Griecar. Further, you can characterize it as bragging if you want but it was the truth and since nothing that Freeh investigated had anything to do with Grecar I wonder what you are trying to say.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

That is not what I have seen reported. I have seen that there were plans to meet with Paterno, but his health issues are what prevented the meeting from ever taking place. That is not the same as falling on deaf hears. Paterno was diagnosed with lung cancer on November 18, 2011. Freeh was hired to investigate the matter on November 21, 2011.

Paterno continued to meet with an author after his diagnosis (Paterno allegedly knew of his diagnosis long before that date, rumors of his cancer started in at least September) so it's hard to fathom health issues keeping him from an interview. As his condition worsened, he insisted to go on the record with Freeh's investigators but they "didn't have time" until after he passed.

If the "truth" mattered, don't you think you'd find the time to interview an integral part of the story with a terminal disease?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Paterno continued to meet with an author after his diagnosis (Paterno allegedly knew of his diagnosis long before that date, rumors of his cancer started in at least September) so it's hard to fathom health issues keeping him from an interview. As his condition worsened, he insisted to go on the record with Freeh's investigators but they "didn't have time" until after he passed.

If the "truth" mattered, don't you think you'd find the time to interview an integral part of the story with a terminal disease?

The truth was not what they were looking for. If they had, they would have interviewed him. Further, the Grand Jury found no fault in what Paterno did but he was the easiest to target. Also Freeh's report only referenced an email from "Paterno" that was the thing that led him to believe he was complicit in a cover up. Paterno was well known for not using his email account and was only accessed by an assistant.

The Freeh report didn't offer any support for his conclusion either. IF you are going to make conclusions you should have all the facts. Obviously he didn't.

 

[joseephuss]

The truth was not what they were looking for. If they had, they would have interviewed him. Further, the Grand Jury found no fault in what Paterno did but he was the easiest to target. Also Freeh's report only referenced an email from "Paterno" that was the thing that led him to believe he was complicit in a cover up. Paterno was well known for not using his email account and was only accessed by an assistant.

The Freeh report didn't offer any support for his conclusion either. IF you are going to make conclusions you should have all the facts. Obviously he didn't.

The grand jury found no fault with Paterno because he lied to them and they didn't realize he was lying.

 

[joseephuss]

Paterno continued to meet with an author after his diagnosis (Paterno allegedly knew of his diagnosis long before that date, rumors of his cancer started in at least September) so it's hard to fathom health issues keeping him from an interview. As his condition worsened, he insisted to go on the record with Freeh's investigators but they "didn't have time" until after he passed.

If the "truth" mattered, don't you think you'd find the time to interview an integral part of the story with a terminal disease?

Do you have a link for this? Like I said, I have not seen any reports of Paterno insisting on a meeting and being turned down.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

The grand jury found no fault with Paterno because he lied to them and they didn't realize he was lying.

No one, not even the Attorney General's office feels that Paterno was untruthful about his GJ testimony. I can link his entire testimony if you'd like to point out a falsehood.

 

[joseephuss]

No one, not even the Attorney General's office feels that Paterno was untruthful about his GJ testimony. I can link his entire testimony if you'd like to point out a falsehood.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

Mr. Paterno: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.

You did mention — I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody.

I don’t know.

I don’t remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.

The whole premise is that Paterno did know something about Sandusky earlier than the 2001 incident, yet here he said he didn't. That can be classified as a falsehood.