NCAA Seeks to Dismiss Case

Or, What is something we all expected for $500, Alex?

According to this article on Yahoo Sports . . .

The NCAA also firmly denied a claim that it had conspired with former FBI director Louis Freeh's team in formulating the sanctions. Freeh led the school's internal investigation into the scandal, and the Paterno family and three former school officials have vehemently denied Freeh's scathing allegations of a cover-up. 

''Their suit complains primarily about the conclusions of the Freeh Report, conducted at the behest of the Penn State Board, and the university's acceptance of its findings,'' NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement outlining the organization's arguments. ''The NCAA did not commission the Freeh Report nor had any role in it."

Yet, the NCAA had no problem using that report as the sole basis for their unprecedented punishment of a member school.

I must admit, though, that the NCAA attorney's are absolutely brilliant.  The whole Consent Decree thing has to be one of the legal coups in the history of this country.

We didn't commission the report (or conspire with it) yet we used it in place of our investigation.  You commissioned the report, tacitly accepted the report, and agreed to allow us to punish you for it.

I just hope the courts realize that all this legal posturing and pointing out technicalities doesn't divert attention to the fact that these actions have HARMED other people, whether they were party to these shenanigans or not.

This is America.  Why not ALLOW the courts to actually examine this situation?  If the NCAA is really innocent of any wrongdoing, then presumably they will be acquitted. 

If the Freeh Report fits, then they must acquit!  Do a victory dance and counter sue the Paterno's et. al. for your court expenses, lost revenue, etc.

I have a feeling, though, that the NCAA is far from confident that the courts will find in their favor, and dismissal is not only a legal tactic, but an essential survival tactic.

At this point, there are several trustees still part of the original suit which hopefully will give further credence to "standing."

Newly elected-trustees have also come forward on PS4RS:

As newly elected Trustees to the Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State University, we want to make clear that we fully support the legal claims filed against the NCAA by our Trustee colleagues Al Clemens, Ryan McCombie, Peter Khoury, Anthony Lubrano and Adam Taliaferro. 

Based on information we have reviewed, we agree the NCAA breached its contractual obligations to Penn State to treat the University and its student-athletes, coaches and administrators fairly and in accordance with the NCAA’s own constitution and bylaws. That did not happen. Rather, the University and the affected individuals were denied due process of law. 

We support a legal review of the sanctions imposed on Penn State, the basis for the sanctions and the process used to enact them. 

We further support an open and thorough review of the Freeh report by the Board of Trustees in light of accounts from credible and respected sources that the report is seriously flawed and incomplete. This report is the sole basis for the NCAA sanctions and has become the reference point for the media and the public. It is accepted as truth because the board never formally rejected it. As Board Chairman Keith Masser recently observed in USA Today however, many of the conclusions in the report appear to amount to “speculation.” In our view, this matter calls for openness, thoroughness and transparency. The greater Penn State community has been calling for this action, and they deserve no less.

I'm not holding my breath, but I am praying that the judge allows this claim to move on.  Hey!  Maybe I am in favor of MOVING ON after all!  Especially if it involves moving on all over the corrupt NCAA!

A Midsummer Dark Night's Scheme

 

The Freeher: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just, do things. The NCAA has plans, the Trustees have plans, the Paterno’s got plans. You know, they’re schemers. Schemers trying to control their worlds. I’m not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how, pathetic, their attempts to control things really are. So, when I say, ah, come here, when I say that you and your football team was nothing personal, you know that I’m telling the truth. 

It’s the schemers that put you where you are, Spanier. You were a schemer, you had plans, and uh, look where that got you. I just did what I do best. I took your plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did, to Penn State with a few innuendos and a couple of emails. Hm? You know what, you know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that like an ex-Florida player gets arrested for murder, or a truckload of academic fraud happened at North Carolina, nobody panics, because it’s all, part of the plan. But when I say that one, little old football coach covered up a scandal when he didn't, well then everyone loses their minds!

In case you are not aware, the tangled web of lawsuits continues . . .

Graham Spanier has filed a notice of intent to bring a defamation lawsuit against Louis Freeh.

Spanier, who has denied the allegations in the report, is suing Freeh and his firm, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, for libel/defamation. Spanier is seeking monetary damages and is demanding a jury trial. 

Of course, you're probably already aware that the Paterno family, joined by former players, coaches, faculty members and Board of Trustee members have sued the NCAA to reverse the sanctions.

The suit, to be filed in Common Pleas Court of Centre County, Pa., alleges that the NCAA violated its own rules in meting out penalties in the wake of the child sex abuse case involving former Nittany Lions assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, penalties that were based on an investigative report by former FBI director Louis Freeh.

And recently, Coach O'Brien spoke behind closed doors to the Board of Trustees.

O’Brien addressed the trustees for more than an hour Friday morning behind closed doors during the board’s executive session at the Penn State Fayette branch campus. The presentation’s slides were visible from a hallway through several full-length glass-paned doors into the room where the session was held. 

But, one of the presentation slides had the heading “potential proposal to modify sanctions” and another had a heading concerning the impact of the scholarship reductions that are part of the sanctions. 

Another slide read “Individual lawsuits do not help us!” with the words “do not” underlined and in capital letters.

This latter slide has prompted a surge of Internet speculation drawing lines between those who support O'Brien's decision to reduce the sanctions and "move on:" versus those who still seek the truth, even if sanctions persist.

My Take:

Glass doors?  Seriously?  If that wasn't planned, for the effect that it is having, then I've never been a Penn State fan.

Look.  Bill O'Brien is stepping up to the plate for his team.  His slide about "INDIVIDUAL" lawsuits may not even be referring to the Paterno suit, since there are multiple parties involved.  He is concerned about his team--about giving his current players a level field to play on, to give his team depth so that his players aren't more susceptible to injury, and to enhance recruiting which gives more students a chance to earn a Penn State degree.

None of the players on this team have anything to do with what allegedly happened, and penalizing the program isn't helping a single victim one iota.  The NCAA over-stepped its authority.  The Freeh Report is flawed.  Not a single PSU administrator has yet been convicted of any wrong doing. 

Unlike the Governor's anti-trust suit against the NCAA, there is a better chance that the courts will allow the Paterno suit to proceed, i.e. that the plaintiff's have standing.  While that doesn't mean the NCAA will lose, it does mean that the next phase--discovery--will allow the representing attorneys the opportunity to subpoena NCAA records, which from what I've been told, could open up a significant can of worms.

It is probably true that pending lawsuits against the NCAA would probably deter the organization from reducing any sanctions currently.  But that may be part of the scheme.  The NCAA may be more likely to reduce the sanctions--if certain or all lawsuits are dropped.  Whether intentionally or not, the Paterno Suit actually gives the NCAA some ammunition to continue the sanctions despite the fact that Penn State has behaved and implemented most of the changes recommended by the Gospel According to Freeh.

So what do you think?

Has O'Brien sold out to the move-on proponents, just to make things go away without any regard to the truth?  Or is he just fighting for his team with no political agenda to further?

I lean toward the latter.

Did Erickson Sell-Out Penn State?

Just when you think the whole catastrophe couldn't get any worse, you read something like this from the Sun Sentinel . . .

Ameen Najjar, the NCAA enforcement director until his May 2012 firing, sent multiple emails to Shapiro's jail account to explain why the case against UM was crumbling, according to documents obtained by the Sun Sentinel. Najjar also criticized the NCAA's handling of Penn State's unprecedented sanctions relating to the Jerry Sandusky child sex scandal, but focused on the governing body's handling of the Miami case.

An Aug. 7 email from Najjar to Shapiro addressed the Penn State sanctions.

"The Penn State deal is a travesty," he wrote. "The NCAA did not impose anything. Penn State agreed to and self-imposed the penalties, waved all due process and waived any right to appeal. The NCAA had/has NO authority to impose any penalties in that situation and PSU's president sold the school down the river!"

Granted, this is an email from a disgruntled former employee, but it does throw Erickson's actions into a new light.  I always wondered why Penn State was so quick to accept a punishment that wasn't warranted.  Maybe we didn't accept it.  Maybe we created it, and I use the term "we" loosely.  It will be very interesting to see how this new revelation plays out.

The Tragedy of Premature Conclusions

The parallels of Joe's fall (to be honest though, he was PUSHED) to the Greek tragedies that he often quoted are remarkable.  Every hero in a Greek tragedy has a fatal flaw.  I think for Paterno, it was his loyalty--not only to colleagues like Jerry Sandusky, but to Spanier, Curley and Schultz as well, not to mention his loyalty to the University.  You can blame Paterno all you want for the tragedies that befell those victims, but he was but a cross roads for the passage of information.  If McQueary had never contacted him, his legacy would be intact.  Had Schultz/Spanier/Curley handled the matter differently, his legacy would probably still be intact.  But by putting his faith in those people--believing whatever version of the story that McQueary told him and then having faith that his superiors would handle it properly,  Joe inadvertently sacrificed his legacy. 

Dr. JC posted this on the BWI McAndrew Board.  The literary references of Dr. JC (below) are stunning as well.  I thought it was worth reposting here, and with his blessing, here it is.

A NEW NARRATIVE: THE TRAGEDY
OF PREMATURE CONCLUSIONS

 

Sometimes it is painfully difficult to hold onto something that in your soul you believe is true, particularly when that very belief has faced an onslaught by those parties and individuals who control the dialogue: Maybe that is what faith is all about. Penn State students, alumni, and fans who have followed the tragic situation at their university have had to sit tight and endure the anger, incriminations, and vitriol that were the manifestation of the Louis Freeh Report, a presentment that went without challenge or vetting: The fact is, that this it was literally accepted in its entirety on face value. However, in recent months we have had the opportunity to experience new and revealing reports commissioned by the Paterno family. These presentments offered cogent, well constructed, comprehensive counterpoints and challenging findings by individuals with truly impressive credentials. Finally, we have the opportunity to experience the long overdue vetting and rebuttal to what some considered the questionable findings of the Louis Freeh Report. Yet for the most part, these new presentations have been ignored by the media or discredited for a host of what seem ill-considered reasons. It feels as if there is a dedicated unwillingness to countenance the possibility that the Freeh Report was flawed and overstated in its conclusions.
 

Let us not forget the response to the findings and pronouncements contained in the Louis Freeh Report. The popular hosts of television and radio talk shows, sports commentators, columnists, private citizens, fans, the Penn State Board of Trustees (BOT), and of course the NCAA all reacted almost instantly, ruthlessly castigating in particular the legendary coach Joe Paterno for allegedly being an accomplice in a disgraceful cabal to hide what happened at Penn State. In my opinion, Mr. Freeh presented his findings in a manner filled with hyperbole and overstatement, a theatrical, dramatic style clearly designed to "raise the ire" of the audience. Of course, the media picked up the "drum beat" and opined in a similar style, the airwaves and editorial pages filled with commentaries couched in indignation and outrage. To be incensed with Jerry Sandusky after the trial revealed his guilt is totally understandable and maybe even welcome. But regarding the "Penn State Four"  (Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno), it quickly became apparent that for far too many there was neither the time nor the desire to be patient until a more complete picture could emerge - a picture wherein other sources of factual evidence could be put on the table and considered before reaching conclusions regarding any alleged cover-up. And, regardless of the Paterno presentments, I fear that the particularly loathsome nature of sexual predation and victimization has permitted and justified in the minds of many a sweeping attack upon and sterilization of everything Penn State-related. A predator hurt young children; hysteria and the lack of due process damaged a great university and an iconic figure.
 

I believe it is incumbent upon us to at least wonder why so many individuals were willing to almost blindly accept one presentment and not at least wonder if there should not have been a public vetting of a document that was filled with such damning conclusions, particularly since theconclusions were based upon a suspect methodology of investigation. To me, that was unconscionable! It should not have been permitted to happen. Were those who based their opinions strictly on the Freeh Report not aware of his investigative record? It is both important and revealing to note the fact that Louis Freeh completed a report for FIFA, the governing body of the International Soccer Association, pertaining to corruption charges against Bin Hamman, a candidate for president. Upon review by the Court of Arbitration of Sport, many of the charges were dismissed as they found the investigative report by Freeh to be incomplete and lacking in the necessary comprehensiveness. Should that not at least be a flag that suggests proceeding with caution before taking his findings at Penn State as irrefutable, rock-solid truths? I would think so.
 

Apparently in what has been termed a "rush to injustice," there was neither tolerance nor time for another narrative to develop. Due process and in particular one of the most honored pillars of American jurisprudence – the notion of prosecution and defense, were cast to the wind. It seemed everyone knew who the guilty parties were - so let's not waste time: Might as well just throw the rope over the limb and have a good old-fashioned media lynching! It would have been helpful if someone had reminded those individuals who were so quick to convict and punish of that famous novel that so dramatically depicted the consequences of callous injustice - The Ox-Bow Incident.

Unfortunately, like many media-generated stories, the Penn State saga has a "media life" wherein other more recent narratives and information no longer pique the interest of the media and general public; the once irresistible sensationalism of Paterno and Penn State has quickly lost consumer interest. In essence, the damage has been done and the thinking of many has been set almost irretrievably in concrete.
 

As a psychoanalyst, I believe that what we are currently experiencing (as evidenced by the recent Piers Morgan and Matt Lauer interviews) is technically what we call resistance. Particularly, individuals are often rigidly resistant to facing the reality of their actions and misperceptions. Simply - they would rather not know and remain attached to their false notions, delusions, and dysfunctional behavior. When these individuals are confronted, they often become agitated and highly defensive. A perfect example of this was the manner in which Piers Morgan attacked Ziegler and tried to dismiss his information as bogus and ridiculous. Unfortunately, Ziegler's natural manner is not conducive to having a reasonable conversation with someone as defended as Morgan.

Resistance must be tactfully addressed and removed before an individual can engage in a conversation that might raise their anxiety and promote a degree of self-examination. Few have the capacity of a Bob Costas to entertain the notion that he was premature in his opinions and consequently found the capacity and strength to revise his conclusions. For most of those who publicly denounced Paterno, they must either flee from or discredit the new revelations in order to save face and to sidestep the damage to a great university, its alumni, and a legendary
iconic man, which in part they are responsible for. Sadly, it seems to be a characteristic of our still immature and often tabloid-minded society.

I am particularly confused by the actions of the NCAA regarding the draconic sanctions imposed upon Penn State. To me, they seem a little "psychotic;" that is, not in touch with the reality of what transpired at Penn State.  And, it is important to understand that what happened at Penn State has likely happened at other universities and institutions across our country. This is a national problem, not just a Penn State problem.
 

In my opinion, the NCAA wandered far out of bounds from their designated role; that is, to monitor and assure the fairness of competition and safety of college athletics. And, it is important to keep in mind that the true scope of these sanctions or more to the point - punishments, intentionally or unintentionally has caused substantial distress to the entirety of the Penn State : the reputation of a great university; the alumni of Penn State; the current student body; present and past football teams (wins vacated from 1998 through 2011); and of course the residents and businesses of central Pennsylvania that are reliant upon the revenues generated by football at Beaver Stadium. Of course, it is particularly frustrating, as the justifications for these sanctions have now been challenged with some well-considered opinions that are rather convincing in their dismissal of the assumptions and poorly substantiated conclusions contained in the Freeh Report.
 

Again, I believe that the NCAA is in the same situation regarding resistance. It would be rather anxiety provoking for them to change their position, as it might suggest that they were at least extreme in their actions regarding PSU, if not downright wrong. Attacking or confronting them simply will strengthen their resistance and resolve to keep the sanctions in effect. However, an empathic non-confrontational strategy that helps reduce their resistance to considering the Paterno presentment might at least provide a stepping-stone to reducing or eliminating the sanctions.

When considering what happened at Penn State, we need to promote a rational perspective. Jim Clemente, a highly recognized expert on child sexual abuse and a former FBI profiler clearly points out in his report that the failure on the part of individuals and institutions to quickly recognize the identity of sexual predators and the scope of their actions is both well documented and unfortunately all too common. Psychologists and sociologists have long elaborated upon how incredibly masterful predators are in covering up or obscuring the reality of their behavior with children - the so-called "grooming" process: familiarity with family members, a high level of regard within the community, and a revered image all work in the service of cleverly concealing that which is actually happening and can cause hesitation within the minds of those who might entertain suspicions. In his report, Jim Clemente uses the expression "nice guy acquaintance" victimizer in referring to the pattern and style of predation that Jerry had mastered. Under an elaborately constructed disguise as a pillar of the community, legendary defensive coach,and the force behind the Second Mile program, he was able to satisfy his sexual needs with children with no suspiciousness by anyone. In essence, he was a masterful and cunning "groomer;" but it was not strictly the children who were groomed for his needs. Over a long period of time, the entire Penn State University - State College community was successfully groomed to cover up his deeds and provide for his special needs.  It is well within reason to at least consider that the situation at Penn State was one in which anyone who may have had some questions regarding Jerry Sandusky's behavior with children may unfortunately have cavalierly dismissed them as just "Jerry being Jerry." And of course, his development of and commitment to the Second Mile Program put him high in the regard of the entire State College community.
 

I believe that we need to communicate to our detractors and doubters how incredibly difficult it was to even contemplate, let alone believe, that someone who maintained such high esteem within the community - an individual who had been the source of accolades and admiration could be guilty of abusing those very children he purported to assist and protect. And, in Jim Clemente's opinion, that is what happened at Penn State and that is why in fact there was no cabal - no sinister intent to cover-up of Sandusky's actions. It is just those thoughts - those very misperceptions regarding "acquaintance victimizers" that enable masterful predators like Jerry Sandusky in particular, to go without revelation until the tragedy that has befallen the victims is finally recognized and confronted. Finally, there now is a reasonable, plausible narrative presented by an acknowledged expert in the field of child sexual abuse and victimization that makes sense out of how things went down at Penn State in the late 1990's and early 2000's. I suggest that it is relatively impossible to use 2011 eyes to see and understand actions in 1998 or 2001. And that was Freeh's critical fault and the failing of his report; that is, the inability to grasp the true nature of what was happening at Penn State circa 1998-2001.
 

In my opinion, the Penn State board of trustees should have defended, not defiled Joe Paterno's reputation until due process or at least further sworn testimony showed that he was a knowing participant in any alleged cover-up: The dedication of his life's energy as well as much of his personal wealth to Penn State should at least have warranted that consideration. You do not permit a great university, its alumni, and an iconic figure to be trashed on a singular, unchallenged, and suspect piece of so-called evidence. Had the media and the board of trustees waited until the truth came forward, hysteria would have succumbed to the quieting light of due process and honest revelation - and that is the way it should be!
 

For reasons that are rather apparent, the assault on the legacy of Joe Paterno reminded me of the infamous "Dreyfus Affair." In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a French army artillery officer, was tried and found guilty of treason by a court martial on the basis of false and misleading evidence - evidence that was contrived and corrupted in order to reach a predetermined desired outcome. It was later revealed that testimony on the treasonous actions of Dreyfus was perjured -filled with outrageous insinuations and assumptions. However, thanks in part to the relentless efforts of the fiery writer Emile Zola (J'accuse) and a few dedicated individuals, the truth was finally revealed and the conspiracy against Dreyfus was shown for what it really was - -anti-Semitism and the corruption of due process by entrenched powers. After spending years banished to the infamous Devil's Island in French Guyana, he was found innocent and his rank restored. But the similarities are disturbing: When initially found guilty, Dreyfus was paraded in front of a jeering public, stripped of his rank and insignia medals, and his sword broken in half. In his disgraced and torn uniform, he was paraded through the crowd and spat upon. Think about it! Joe's statue being removed, his placards torn down, his record from 1998 through 2011 erased, and his legacy being dragged through the media to be spat upon and his name a source of disgrace. Again, are the parallels not compelling at least and frightening at worst? All this predicated on assumptions and "must have knowns." J'accuse the American media of a mass hysteria. J'accuse the media of creating a man of mythical proportions, only then to revel in destroying him.
 

It is rather ironic to note that the NCAA chastised Penn State for permitting the culture of football to dominate and corrupt the affairs of the university. What? Did I hear that correctly? Are they joking? Is the NCAA suffering from delusions? For decades, Penn State has been the absolute model for the student-athlete, with the annual graduation rates for football players consistently amongst the highest in the country - and often the highest. Particularly, the graduation rate for African-American athletes surpasses almost all other institutions. Penn State is noted for producing academic all-Americans at an unprecedented rate; yet; the NCAA warns them about the culture of football – a culture largely created by the NCAA itself, as it has negotiated massive financial contracts with the media for bowl games, play-offs, etc. J'accuse the NCAA of blatant hypocrisy - of pointing an accusatory finger at Penn State when that very finger should be pointed at themselves. And, J'accuse the board of trustees for cowering to bullies by not demanding due process to provide a more reasonable and factual understanding of what really transpired and illuminating any role that JoePa and others might have had in this tragedy. J'accuse the board of trustees of derogation of the responsibility of debunking the attacks regarding the "culture of football" at Penn State and demonstrating with facts what we have accomplished in the last forty years. J'accuse the board of trustees for not properly and openly vetting the Freeh report, before accepting it as fact and justification for their actions. In fact, I now must wonder if the board of trustees had an agenda regarding Joe - maybe even the rare opportunity for a few to act-out some bizarre vendetta regarding Joe Paterno. It surely begs the question: Was the Sandusky situation an ideal time to get some payback and destroy the legacy of Joe Paterno? Maybe not to others, but to me that is the only way I can understand the impulsivity of the board in firing Joe and their refusal to stand behind a man who had done so much for Penn State. There seems to be a play within a play within a play.
 

In closing, if due process should reveal culpability on the part of Joe Paterno and other members of the administration for the tragedy that occurred at Penn State, I will accept it and slowly, painfully work through it - always remembering that children were hurt. But until that is established, although cantankerous in nature and imperfect as a man, I will continue to embrace the notion of Joe Paterno as a brilliant and dedicated coach, teacher, and philanthropist at a great university. He was steadfastly committed to an idealized notion of what college athletics should be and never veered far from that vision. Unlike the falsified, aggrandized media image that made Joe Paterno a man for all seasons - the reality is that he was but a man made for the football season.

Joseph A. Cattano, Ph.D.,
PSU 1971

Dissenting Opinion

At least two people have already spoken out negatively regarding the report that was commissioned by the Paterno family and scheduled to be released tomorrow.  And this is without either one actually READING THE REPORT.

Are they Board of Trustee members?  (Get it, they accepted the Freeh report before it was actually completed and released, but I digress.)

No they are not.  But they are members of the "media", one representing Sporting News and the other CBS.

Steven Greenberg writes:

But the Paternos have gone on a major offensive, one that may or may not help to clear Joe's name but will — without a doubt — cause angst and discomfort for many regular folks in State College and around the country. It may freshen the pain for Sandusky's victims and their families, too.

We haven't seen the report yet, but we'll go ahead and summarize it for you anyway: Joe did nothing wrong. If there was a cover-up, he played no part in it. Joe wanted nothing more than for the full, unvarnished truth to come out about everything related to Sandusky's actions. Joe was indeed the man you once thought he was, and he deserves to be remembered as such.

Look, that's not to say there won't be important details — yes, truth — in this report. There may have been a few rushes to judgment, a few bows tied prematurely, in the Freeh Report. Hopefully, the Paternos and their investigators will enlighten us.

If you can detect room for an admission of real fallibility[in Sue Paterno's Letter] — let alone an apology — anywhere in there, please tell us. Because we can't.

And if they can't believe, can't even conceive of, what some of us believe — that, at the worst possible time, JoePa's morality went unforgivably limp? Perhaps that just makes them human.

Isn't it comforting to know that a journalist associated with a media outlet like Sporting News isn't worried about details like TRUTH.  Hell, he can't even wait for the actual report to start piling on again.  And his rebuttal helps the victims in what way?  Wouldn't truth be helpful?  Don't the victims want to know what went wrong and why their pain was not forestalled or stopped?  Since when do rushes to judgment and prematurely tied assumptions and misinformation trump actual TRUTH?

The second piece of trash comes from the fingers of Dan Bernstein, associated with CBS in Chicago.
Mr. Bernstein attempts to tackle this matter with sarcasm and humor, and misses as badly as Manti Teo missed tackles in the BCS title game.

The crimes supposedly committed by Sandusky were actually committed by conspiratorial members of the mainstream media, as part of an elaborate plan to embarrass Penn State due to “jealousy.” These media members, coincidentally, were all employed by print/electronic/digital outlets outside of Pennsylvania. They maintain that reporters, columnists, anchors and personalities were motivated thusly because the football teams of their respective almae matres were not as good as the Nittany Lions.

Joe Paterno actually died in 1983, and everything since has been an uncanny series of muscle spasms.

Oh yes, the age card is always good for a laugh, even if the guy is actually dead.  Sounds like something you'd read on a Pitt message board.  We now know why this man writes columns rather than doing stand-up comedy.

• The report cites new information — undermining the conclusions of the Freeh investigation — that was provided by a recently-contacted source: a lovely, young Stanford coed of Samoan descent who has apparently had a rough go of it lately.
• Paterno’s true win total? 9,546.

Real funny stuff right there.  Ties in that whole Manti Teo thing.  And it's Mr. Bowden who is counting high school wins, junior college wins and anything remotely connected to football as a win in his career total--not Joe Paterno.  And Sue Paterno even went out of her way to say that this fight isn't about the wins, but hey, if you can get a cheap laugh out of that, I guess it's worth a shot.  Much better than these efforts:

• Paterno, a devout Catholic, was simply emulating the behaviors of respected clergymen like Bernard Francis Law of Boston, Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, and longtime Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger.
• The Paternos’ independent report also claims that victims 2 , 4, 7 and 10 were really, really cute, you have to admit. C’mon. Especially 4.

Mr Bernstein?  How would you feel if victim #4 read that?  Or any of them for that matter?  For someone who is willing to throw due process under the bus in the name of protecting innocent children, you seem to have a blatant disregard for the emotional condition of those you supposedly champion.  Just so you can get a laugh?  Oh, you were trying to make a point?  I totally missed that, but perhaps it's because your sarcasm isn't as sharp as you think it is.

I wonder how this writer would feel if his own father or a good friend was accused of playing a role in some heinous crime, for which he was actually innocent.  Would he still have written this drivel?

His righteous indignation has been on display since this whole thing exploded.  He was aghast at the Rally for the current Penn State team.  In that same article he claimed Lubrano won his spot on the BOT by promising to post-humously rehire Joe Paterno.  In another gem, he claims that Franco Harris's support of Paterno can be "chalked up to football-related deterioration, and his brain will be in a Boston University bell-jar sooner rather than later." 

I guess when you consider the source . . .

We'll see who has the last laugh.

Is a Storm Coming?

I'm not talking about snow in Boston.

Rumors started early in the week about an interview of Sue Paterno by Katie Couric to air on February 11th.  Then there were tweets about an upcoming segment of OTL on ESPN to be aired on Sunday.

And today, a letter by Sue to former Letterman was posted.

The crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky are heartbreaking. As a mother of 5 and grandmother of 17, it is incomprehensible to me that anyone could intentionally harm a child. I think of the victims daily and I pray that God will heal their wounds and comfort their souls.

When the Freeh report was released last July, I was as shocked as anyone by the findings and by Mr. Freeh's extraordinary attack on Joe's character and integrity. I did not recognize the man Mr. Freeh described. I am here to tell you as definitively and forcefully as I know how that Mr. Freeh could not have been more wrong in his assessment of Joe. I knew Joe Paterno as well as one human being can know another. Joe was exactly the moral, disciplined and demanding man you knew him to be. Over the years I watched as he struggled with countless personal and professional challenges. Never - not once - did I see him compromise his principles or twist the truth to avoid bad publicity or protect his reputation. Joe was tough, sometimes difficult, always opinionated and extremely demanding. He was also scrupulously honest, rigidly moral and absolutely unafraid of the consequences of doing the right thing.

After the Freeh report was released I knew immediately that the situation demanded further review. Unfortunately, the Board's response was to panic again. They embraced the report without reviewing it. They never met with Mr. Freeh or his investigators. They asked no questions and challenged no assertions. Although they never officially voted to accept the report, they endorsed its findings and allowed the NCAA to impose unprecedented sanctions. To claim that this ill-considered and rash process served the victims and the university is a grave error. Only the truth serves the victims. Only the truth can help prevent this sort of crime from occurring again.

Although it was not something I ever imagined doing, I directed my lawyer, Wick Sollers, of the King and Spalding firm in Washington DC, to undertake a review of the Freeh report and Joe's actions. I told him to engage the best, most respected experts, to take whatever time he needed and to go wherever the facts led. Sunday morning at 9am we are releasing the full Report by Wick and his team of experts. The report and additional information will be available at Paterno.com.  

Second, there has been endless speculation about what my family and I ultimately want to achieve. Is it the return of the statue? The restoration of Joe's wins? His name on the football stadium? On this point I also want to be clear. Joe Paterno's legacy wasn't a statue, a winning record or public adulation. He was grateful for the many accolades he received but he never believed they defined his life. His legacy is his family and you his players. How you live your life speaks louder than any report. The great fathers, husbands and citizens you have become fulfill the dreams Joe had. All that we want - and what I believe we owe the victims, Joe Paterno and everyone who cares about Penn State - is the full record of what happened. On this point, I know the advice Joe would give. Don't give up. Don't be afraid. Do the right thing. And make sure your actions serve the greater good. This is the path I will continue to follow.

AMEN!  You go Sue!  I wonder how Wick's report compares cost-wise to the Freeh Fiasco.

I have said all along that the man we all knew--Joe Paterno--and the man portrayed by Freeh and the media were not congruous.  Of course, the same could be said for Jerry Sandusky--but at least Jerry had his day in court and was given due process.  Joe Paterno never had that luxury.

Governor Corbett has also filed a suit, which the NCAA has already filed a motion to dismiss.  Let's face it.  The NCAA cannot allow this go to court.  Penn State broke no NCAA rules.  The NCAA did not follow their regular procedure for investigation.  And while a Consent Decree was signed, this is not a usual or customary practice that the NCAA uses, and it may have been signed under duress--i.e. a threat of greater penalties.  NCAA lawyers will be hard pressed to explain all these irregularities in procedure.

And while it may take months to years to complete, it will be really interesting to see what happens if Schultz, Curley and Spanier are acquitted.  Think about that.  What if they did follow Pennsylvania law in reporting Sandusky to The Second Mile?  If they are acquitted, how in the hell can the NCAA justify any penalty whatsoever?  So you penalize a school that broke no laws and no rules?

And to top off all of this, Congressman Dent of Lehigh Valley is promising Congressional Hearings into the NCAA's decision regarding Penn State.

Dent, in a telephone interview Friday, said he had read summaries of the review commissioned by the late head football coach's family. The review is set to be published Sunday morning.

"To blame the culture of Penn State for Sandusky's crimes is a horrible mistake," Dent said Friday, characterizing the findings of one of the experts commissioned by the Paterno family. "To blame the culture of Penn State or even the football program … is not supported by the facts."

Dent said the review cements his conclusion that Penn State has been "horribly mistreated" by the NCAA. After the college sports governing body hit Penn State with a $60 million fine and stripped the one-time Big10 powerhouse of football scholarships last summer, Dent called on NCAA president Mark Emmert to keep the money in Pennsylvania and restore opportunities for student athletes.

"The entire Penn State culture was punished based on this report," Dent said, adding that he will call for congressional hearings on the NCAA's decision.

Dent said the Paterno family's review comprises reports by four experts, including a former U.S. attorney general whom Dent would not identify. "The former attorney general says the Freeh report is seriously flawed, very flawed," Dent said.

Some have speculated that the unidentified US AG is former Governor Dick Thornburg.

And I thought the off season was going to be boring!

The Framing of Joe Paterno

It's a little long, but well worth the time if you can spare it.

UK Sports Editor Blasts Freeh

Neil Monnery describes himself as a ‘Former Sports Editor now SEO & Search Marketing Guy. Hospital Radio DJ, Sports Fan, Sleep Lover, Liberal, Freelance Writer & Broadcaster.’  I don't think he's found himself yet, have you? 

But he has found some things to say about the Gospel According to Freeh.

Reading the Freeh Report and somehow not throwing up all over my desk and surrounding carpet is I think an achievement in itself.

The Freeh Report is full of holes and did not speak to many of the important people involved due to various reasons. Basically if I was using another American scandal I’d say it was the Mitchell Report which was ready to bury people based on just one source – Brian McNamee.


This time round Louis Freeh is ready to bury people on the strength of 14 and 11 year-old e-mails that may or may not be out of context. We all know that if this was a prosecution case in a criminal trial then no-one would be found guilty but the court of public opinion is a very different one to that of a court of law.

Now I am still what you call old school. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and deserve to be treated as such. You are not innocent until a report into your conduct which only looks at a small portion of the evidence deems you as such. That isn’t how we do it in the democratic world – well it isn’t how it should be done anyway.   There is surely plenty of blame to go around. We just don’t know where the blame should be laid yet. We all have opinions but opinions and knowledge are two very different kettles of fish.   When people like Mike McQueary, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz etc… start speaking publicly and/or under oath then we might start getting the full picture. Until then we have seen half the story and to form an opinion based on half a story is not much further elvolved [sic] than what happened at the Salem witch trials.

 Monnery also takes a good jab at Rick Reilly, who was particularly outspoken against Paterno recently.

But Rick--and others--would call us Paterno apologists.

I am an apologist . . . I'm very sorry that due process has been ignored and our society feels this crushing desire to harm innocent people without said due process.

A LITTLE More About Paterno

A photographer close to the Penn State program for many years writes on his blog about Joe Paterno after reading Posnanski's book . . .

No matter which camp you reside in, this book will not change your mind or sway you in any direction. I am a photographer and this is the only Paterno book I have ever read. I am not a writer or a book reviewer. I am a man that spent 25 seasons (somewhere north of 200+ games) covering Penn State football from as close as you could get.

Of course, that is less than 100 games since the NCAA sanctions!

If you are looking for the Holy Grail answer as to why Joe did what he did or didn’t do, you will not find it here. The Book did one thing for me, and that was all I was looking for. It filled in some of the blanks. We all know the core story: Brooklyn, Brown, Engle, George, Sue, Coach, Bear, champions, players, education, age. This was the hit music we heard over and over and it became lore. The book feels like the Album to those greatest hits. The songs you didn’t hear when you were only listening to the hits.

In all the years I covered Penn State football with all the people I knew, players, coaches, reporters, photographers, workers, fans, students, and everyone else you can think of after doing this for 25 years, I was as stunned as anyone when the Sandusky story broke. I didn’t hear a rumor, a whisper, a sentence, or a single word about Jerry Sandusky. Nothing. I was very close to the program and gained the trust that you only get from being there that long. I heard nothing.

After reading the Sandusky report and asking his kids about public opinion of him, and they were totally honest, he said: “How could they think that? They really think that if I knew someone was hurting kids, I wouldn’t stop it? Do they know me? Do they know [sic] know what my life was about?” Exactly. That is exactly how I feel. He never liked Sandusky, that was known, for a very long time, by people anywhere near the program. He would never protect anyone who did that to kids. He would walk to the police station and report it, in person, if he had any idea what was going on. That’s what I think. Read what you want, believe what you want. Many times, in this book, Joe speaks to you about this. If this man was acting all his life doing everything he could the right way, turning boys into great men, and working to improve everything around him. Why would he protect someone hurting children? He wouldn’t. It’s that simple.

Too simple for the haters though.  And to this day, I still can't understand how turning Sandusky in would have been bad publicity for the University, or the football program.  On the contrary, they would have been heroes for bringing the monster to justice.  Don't you think if Paterno/Curley/Schultz/Spanier knew what we all now know that they wouldn't have put forth the effort to stop him?  Paterno and Spanier have said that in fact.  Curley and Schultz will echo those sentiments during their trials probably.  The motive for a cover up is highly suspect.

Pat Little concludes with:

So, how do I feel about Joe Paterno?


That’s easy.

I miss him.

I miss him too.

Poll Results

John Ziegler has released a poll of 1,000 adults presumably from around the nation.  I must say, I am not surprised by the results.

The first question asked which school fired the coach of a major men's sport for sexually abusing boys.  A staggering 68% (that's 680 out of the thousand polled for you math whizzes out there) thought the correct response was JOE PATERNO.  Less than 1% answered correctly--Syracuse.

52% thought the media handled the coverage well.  Of course, knowing that 68% of the respondents are already clueless, this conclusion is pretty much worthless.

28% thought that Joe Paterno had molested children.  Of the 55% that answered correctly that he did not, I wonder how many of those were in the 68% who thought he was fired for abusing children.  It's not mathematically possible to get those results without some people answering with conflicting responses.  But hey, they are as consistent as the NCAA is!

Only 9% answered correctly about whether Victim 2 (the shower victim witnessed by McQueary) came forward and testified at Sandusky's trial.

This must be a happy country, because they say ignorance is bliss!

Framing Joe Paterno

A website has been created, Framing Joe Paterno, by an amazing group of individuals including John Ziegler, Marc Rubin, Barry Bozeman, Ray Blehar and Wlater Uhler.  I have linked articles by some of these individuals here on this blog.

Their mission (to boldly go where the media has never gone before!):

This website is dedicated to the notion that an out of control news media has created a false narrative in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, which has effectively framed Joe Paterno for crimes he didn't commit and of which he may have had very limited knowledge. This has resulted in an unjust destruction of a man's entire life work and legacy, while doing incredible damage to a university and football program which may not have deserved the unprecedented and illogical punishments they received. At the very least, since the source of the entire case against Paterno has yet to even be asked about the emails he wrote, we have witnessed a colossal rush to judgment.

This site is NOT a defense of child sexual abuse and, to be clear, Jerry Sandusky was obviously guilty of most of what he was charged with doing. This site is also NOT remotely based on a conspiracy theory, but rather the notion that an incompetent, ratings driven media, along with some devious politicians, all acted in their own perceived self interest to tell this story in way not consistent with the facts.

We ARE dedicated to exposing the truth in this case and this website may be the home of a proposed documentary film on this subject, "The Framing of Joe Paterno... How an Out of Control Media May Have Railroaded an American Icon."

This site is intended to combine the efforts of the most ardent "Web Defenders" (since the mainstream media won't allow anyone to take a position like ours) of Joe Paterno, including John Ziegler, Marc Rubin, Barry Bozeman, Ray Blehar, and Walter C. Uhler. If others would like to join us in this cause, they are welcome to do so.

I highly recommend the site if you have the time and inclination!

Football Culture

Apparently, Penn State's Rise & Rally insulted some folks.  Well, at least one.

Enter Dan Bernstein, CBS Chicago's Senior Columnist.  It starts from the infamous, and obviously infallible Freeh Report:

“One of the most challenging of the tasks confronting the Penn State community is transforming the culture that permitted Sandusky’s behavior,” it said on page 18. “It is up to the entire university community – students, faculty, staff, alumni, the Board, and the administration to undertake a thorough and honest review of its culture.”

From this premise, he concludes:

Now, it seems like they needn’t have bothered, a day after they allowed 3,000 fans to gather at the football office for an organized pep rally. The marching band played, defiant placards waved, Sue Paterno appeared like some kind of deposed queen of the rebel alliance, and Freeh and Emmert were nowhere to be heard.

Wait – they can be seen, though, on the new t-shirt marketed to fans that has their faces next to that of PSU president Rodney Erickson. The back of the shirt says FOREVER 409 – a rejection of Paterno’s wins since 1998 being officially vacated – and the front says “THE FREEH STOOGES.”

Personally, I think the Freeh Stooges is quite ingenious and entertaining.  Far from insulting.  If you don't want to be called a stooge, then stop acting like one.

This was no fleeting little flash-mob, either. It was sponsored by four local businesses and organized by two former players with an internet radio show. Called “Rise and Rally,” it was created to “help a team going through some hardships,” according to a story in the Daily Collegian.

On the organizers’ Twitter page, they referred to “what these guys have had to endure and overcome,” as if they, too, had been somehow victimized.

I'd make him stop, but I cannot.

Now I'm not even going to begin to equate what Sandusky's victims suffered, to what the University, players, professors, students and fans are going through right now, but I am insulted that anyone insists that those in the Penn State community aren't victims.

We are victims of an over-zealous media with questionable goals, the least of which is the well-being of Sandusky's victims.

We are victims of a lack of current leadership.

We are victims of an NCAA that felt compelled to overstep their jurisdiction and impose ridiculous fines and sanctions on a group of coaches, players, and fan base that had nothing to do with Mr. Sandusky's sexcapades.

The widow of a man killed by a drunk driver is a victim.  The wife of Jerry Sandusky is a victim.  Their pain and suffering are different, but our language does not allow for such nuances in the word VICTIM.

But those of us who are suffering and will suffer under these penalties are shamed into silence because we didn't suffer the same anguish that Mr. Sandusky's victims suffered.

I'm sorry.  I didn't know that, in America, your victim status had to be sanctioned by CBS.  Or ESPN.  Or the NCAA.

But what of this FOOTBALL CULTURE of which you speak?  What in bloody blazes does that mean?


The Penn State Football Culture.  Can you get "Gone-to-USC-a" from that?

 Because I donated money to Penn State and went to games, that I sanctioned or condoned Mr. Sandusky's behavior?  I enabled him?  That by some convoluted logic in some parallel but bizarro universe, I am responsible for what happened?

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Bernstein?

Isn't the media responsible in part (perhaps a large part) for Penn State's level of national recognition?  Likewise for Paterno.  In fact, the attention garnered by Mr. Sandusky's victims is due almost exclusively to the media, and in particular, the sports media. 

Are Sandusky's victims any more harmed than those of a pedophile priest?  Or those raped in Africa on a daily basis?  Or this woman in Claysburg?  The article states:

In 1994, she pleaded guilty to corrupting minors, according to court documents.

"I wouldn't let him walk outside," former neighbor Rick Sawyer said of his son, now 9. "She'd be down at the bus stop."

Despite the rumors and strange behavior, several neighbors said they didn't know the full extent of Partsch's alleged crimes until she was charged last week.   "We knew there were a lot of kids going down there," said one neighbor. "I'm just glad we kept our kids from going there."

Where is the moral responsibility for those neighbors?  Why aren't their careers being erased as though they never happened?  

How is that situation any different than Mr. Sandusky?  Substitute her house for the PSU showers and Mr. Paterno for one of the neighbors who didn't know the extent of what was going on, and deep down, you have to admit there isn't much difference.   

Except that Partch's victims won't get millions of dollars for their pain and suffering.  If Mr. Sandusky was Joe Schmo and the attacks occurred in a shack in Timbuktu, none of those victims would likely even be able to find a lawyer if they wanted one.   

The first instance for Partsch was in 1994! They started investigating last September, but here it is July. How many more victims were enabled by the lack of action by neighbors or authorities trying to "make their case"?

Sandusky's victims suffered because HE chose to act on his urges.  Not because Paterno invited him into the showers.  Not because he coached at Penn State as a defensive coordinator.  Not because fans love to watch Penn State football.  The football program had nothing to do with this.  Had he chosen the Smeal Business College to attack his victims, would we be talking about closing the school of business down?  Don't hurt yourself pondering that one--the answer is no, silly.  Don't be a stooge.  

There is not one shred of evidence that Paterno or any of that group were fully aware that sexual abuse was occurring.  Graham Spanier went on record admitting that he was abused as a child and that if they had ever had evidence that sexual abuse was occurring, they would have acted.  

Punishing the current players, coaches and fans does not help the victims.  It creates more victims, innocent only of a crime of passion for their school.  Some of these players may have come to Penn State just because it was Penn State.  Or because of Joe.  But God forbid, some of them might have actually come because they love to play football and wanted to get an education.  And if you want to argue that they can still do this, then ask yourself why some are leaving.  Do you wonder if they feel victimized?  Or are they not worth your time, O' self righteous ones?  

Maybe you can sit in self-righteous judgment and delude yourself into thinking that punishing Penn State is going to make a difference in the world-wide war against child sexual abuse.  If people in State College stop watching football, this will never happen again!  Well, just don't open your mouth too wide, because it'll fill up very fast with the sand you have your head shoved into.

At first, I was angry at Bernstein.  

In the end, I feel sorry for him.

50 Shades of Blue

Do you still proudly wear your blue and white?

I ask this question because I have seen the issue pop up on two different message boards.  On BWI the question was asked:

Would you feel embarrassed to wear PSU gear outside of Pennsylvania? Saw a poor gal in Nashville yesterday get heckled by several people at a mall while wearing PSU shirt! I felt bad for the gal but think this is probably happening all over the U.S.

Among the responses were these:

I live in Nashville and I wear psu gear all the time. Never been heckled. I have been pleasantly surprised by support. People with a brain realize the tragedy was more about one man...Sandusky.
Not many people have run into any problems.

But on the Audibles messageboard, are some different stories:

I live in Northern Virginia. Some guy went up to my wife at a gas station. She has a Penn State sticker on her car. And the guy went up to my wife and asked her if she was going to take that sticker off. My wife is 4'11, so it obviously it took a lot of balls to go up to a small woman and ask that.

We had someone say "if JoePa were alive, he'd be going to jail".

On Monday, a Mid-30s woman rather sarcastically stated "Nice PSU sticker" on the back of my vehicle, I responded with something along the lines of "Yeah it's been a rough couple of weeks" to which she said "I can't believe you haven't taken that down" All I gave her was a hairy eyeball and a "Why?" to which she walked away.

I live in California now also, my co-workers all now hate Penn State and believe the program should be shut down. I wear hats and t-shirts and have been asked twice why i support child rape. My Mother, who is a PSU Grad 1966, is now afraid to wear her PSU clothes due to remarks she gets - she is way less confrontainal than I am.

I was at the local Sheetz when I was told by a mid 50's lady that I should be embarrassed to have a PSU Alumni Assoc license plate on my car. . . I looked at her in shock and then asked her why I should be embarrassed of a group of students that raise millions for cancer, a football team that has the highest grad rate in D1 football, etc. . . Of course, I live just outside Pittsburgh and she was probably a Pitt Alum...

The week that the news hit in November, someone was honking at my wife and pulled up to her at a light. Started yelling at her about the Penn State magnets on the car. It really shook her.
I have never had a magnet stolen in 10 years in my town (had a bunch over the years coming up for games) but someone took the 4 mini paws from her car. (she later found them on the ground in the parking lot at work). . . But I still don't let my 9 year old son or 6 year old daughter wear PSU stuff when I am not around. You just never know who will say something. And they really don't understand what happened.

Now to be fair, there were more positive or neutral experiences reported than those I sifted out.

As for myself, I generally wear Penn State logo clothing more often than not.  My lab coat at work has a Penn State logo on it, as do two pairs of surgical scrubs (I also have a black pair of Steeler logo scrubs as well.)  And while I do have clothing that is not Penn State, per se, the majority of that clothing is blue or white to match most of the rest of the stuff I wear.  I have 18 Penn State ties, although two of them are identical because I didn't have the heart to tell someone that gave one to me as a gift that I already had that one--they were so excited to give it to me!) In contrast, I have ONE red shirt--I wear it on Valentine's Day, Christmas and Pentecost Sunday.  That's pretty much it.  Really can't stand the color.  I'll wear brown occasionally (after all, JoePa went to Brown!) and green if not's too Spartanish.

But this past week, after the NCAA raping sanctioning of Penn State, I made a point to wear my Penn State clothing EVERY DAY.  I was amazed by the number of comments I received.  I had at least half a dozen people tell me that they were so glad I was STILL supporting the school.  This generally led to a brief discussion about how unfair the sanctions were, the players were not responsible, JoePa has become the scapegoat who can't defend himself any longer, etc.

Of course, I work in Altoona, a stone's throw from State College and in the backyard of the Altoona Campus.  This is LION COUNTRY.  So the data points are skewed.

I had a woman approach me at the surgery center where I operate and thank me for wearing my PSU scrubs.  She went on to say that she worked at Penn State Altoona and things "were really bad."  I'm not sure what she meant by that, but I assume it is a morale thing.  She wouldn't answer my questions to elaborate, but just kept shaking her head and looking like she was trying to hold back tears.

I have actually had requests for tickets to the Ohio game.  Not the Ohio State game, but the season opener.  I can't remember the last time someone contacted me about tickets to a home opener.  I don't think I had requests for Miami in 2001 or Arizona in 1999!  And while the last decade of home openers have been against less than marquee level opponents, I sure as hell wouldn't put Ohio up there.

No.  This isn't about the opponent on the field.  It's about the evil that has leeched off Sandusky and seeped into State College like an unwanted bloodstain.  Out, Out, damned spot!

It is US against the WORLD.

This is about supporting the team, just as the wearing of Blue and White.

This is the time to rally the troops, circle the wagons, and separate the wheat from the chaff, in other words, a time for trite cliches.  But you get the point.

Despite what the lawyers, ESPN and other media outlets say, PENN STATE DID NOT RAPE THOSE CHILDREN.  The actual evidence suggests that the leaders discussed the sitiuation and whatever plan of action they took, it was unfortunate that the crimes went on.

But Penn State did not cover-up a decade of child molestation as the media is so fond of quoting.  At best, the administration of Penn State knew of one instance (2001) and it is far from clear exactly what was transmitted to them at that time.  Horsing around in the shower and rape are two vastly different things, and I pray that the upcoming trials of Curley and Schultz will finally shed some light on the truth in that matter. 

To suggest that Penn State KNEW about the 1998 investigation of Sandusky--and covered it up--is ludicrous.  IT WAS INVESTIGATED.  The police were involved.  The DA was involved.  Everything that everyone is screaming didn't happen in 2001 already happened in 1998!  They had witnesses--the mother and her child.  And yet Sandsuky still went free.  There was not enough evidence to prosecute.  IF Penn State officials knew of the 1998 event, then they also knew that no charges were ever made.  And while that doesn't necessarily mean innocence, it is certainly implied.

There has not been one shred of evidence that any crime by Sandusky other than the 2001 shower incident, was ever known to any of the Penn State admnistrators involved in this.  To suggest they continued to cover up Sandusky's acts is simply wrong and unfathomable.  In fact, it wasn't a cover-up.  You don't report the incident up the chain of command if you are covering something up.

If Joe Paterno wanted to cover this up, his best opportunity to do so was when McQueary first appeared in his office.

"Mike, let me handle this.  I know Sandusky.  I'll take care of this.  It's a sensitive matter, so don't say anything to anyone.  By the way, I'm thinking you would be a great addition to our coaching staff.  You've been great as a graduate assistant.  You let me handle this and I'll put you on the sideline as a coach.  How does that sound?"

But that exchange never took place.  Nothing in the record suggests that Paterno ever tried to cover anything up.  One obscure email taken out of context suggests that Curley wanted to change his mind after talking to Paterno, but what was exactly said has not been on record.

Could it be that Joe said something like this?:

"Tim, this is a touchy issue, no pun intended.  I don't know if we have much evidence here--kind of like that thing that supposedly happened in 1998.  We have to report this, because we can't let kids get hurt if this really is true.  But there's a chance that it could blow up in our faces.  Maybe they were just horsing around.  Sandusky could sue us for libel or slander.  He's already been cleared once.  The media could get hold of it and really make us look bad.  But we have to take that chance.  We have to report this."

So Mr. Curley, after hearing this, decides he doesn't want to report it because Joe painted such a dismal picture and now that he's thought through the possibilitites, he wants to take a different approach.  Not because Joe told him to shut up and cover it up, but exactly the opposite.

Well, maybe it didn't happen that way.  But maybe it did.  The available evidence suggests it could be either one.  Or maybe a third or fourth not yet considered.  Maybe the email wasn't even referring to the decision to report or not, but some other aspect of their investigation into the matter.  Who knows?  (Only the Shadow, and he ain't speaking right now.)

At any rate, Penn State did not cover up sexual abuses for a decade.  At the very worst, they made a wrong decision about ONE episode.  THEY HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT ABUSE WAS ON-GOING.  That's not minimizing what happened or rationalizing.  That is a conclusion based on actual evidence, not the dreamworld supposition of the Freeh Report.  And how the NCAA feels it can blame the football program on any level is beyond me, it is simply over the top to vacate wins back to 1998.  How in the bloody hell is it Joe's fault that the DA didn't press charges in 1998?  And now the forger's of the Freeh Report are upset that the NCAA used it as a basis for punishment.  Can this drama get any carzier???

In any event, wear your blue and white.  Whatever shade of blue.  Wear it proudly.

And I hope to see you at Beaver Stadium on September 1st.

PSU Gear. . . Not just for football anymore!

GO STATE!  BEAT BOBCATS!

NCAA Authority Questioned

From a comment I received . . .

I have a bigger question for the author.

It appears to me that Mark Emmert's Q&A this morning (at the presser) revealed terms and conditions on the origins of the $60 million in penalty fines.

Specifically, members of the media asked Mr. Emmert about whether or not the $60 million in fines would be originating from budgets for other sports or academic programs.
According to this report at ESPN, the $60 million fine "will not come from taxpayers". ESPN claims that it will "come from a savings account within the athletic department".

As a donor to collegiate athletics (not Penn state), this is very troubling. I am now questionning the legitimacy of any financial contribution to any Division 1 school for any type of program. After all, why would I release contributions to the university, if the NCAA or other body can effectively seize my contribution and reallocate it per their directive?

Does the NCAA have the legal authority to impose financial damages on a governmental entity like a state funded university like Penn State?

Mark Emmert's decision strips the board of directors of the ability to allocate and control accounted funds. The bank handling Penn State must be quite upset about losing these funds and must be very concerned about where these $60 million are going.

More importantly, the legislature of a sovereign US state government must now allocate taxpayer funds to balance budget at the university. While ESPN may report that the funds are not originating in tax payer accounts, the funds were clearly offsetting and preventing the use of tax payer funds.

Now, the NCAA is virtually guaranteeing that the state of Pennsylvania must come up with the balance regardless of the ability to allocate state funds of $60 million?

If the savings account is funded with proceeds and contributions from donors, then the NCAA has stripped capital from Penn State and effectively that stolen capital comes from the people of Central and Western Pennsylvania.

This is NOT a minor issue as there are only about 300,000 working people around Central Penn. Effectively, the NCAA action creates a tax on the 300,000 working people of Central Penn due to the decision of a NCAA bureaucrat in Indiana.

The NCAA is not a federal tax authority and it is not a federal governmental agency.
The US Congress has given a unique regulatory position to NCAA, but it has not abdicated the role of the US Congress in regulating interstate commerce.

I am not aware of any other instance where the criminal misconduct of one individual and the unproven allegations of NON-conduct by three other individuals equated to a fiscal and fiduciary impact upon tax payers of one state to the benefit of another state.

This situation is now a federal jurisdictional issue with utter failure of the NCAA leadership to appropriately contain the legal impact of this case.

NCAA did not handle this matter correctly because they are acting across state lines and with this action have created an probable unconstitutional violation of law.

The student athlete's have lost due process rights in this action and while the court process would take longer than a transfer of the student, the disruption alone merits consideration of immediate filing of federal objections in the US District of choice (likely Washington DC).

Your thoughts?

You can't handle my thoughts!  Unfortunately, I am not a legal expert nor an accountant.  Dammit Jim, I'm just a doctor. 

But I will ramble on as best I can.

As I see it, the University has a limited number of revenue sources:  Tax dollars, contributions, tuition, interest/dividends on investments, and sale of real property or hard assets. The latter is probably not worth including but land possession, buildings, equipment etc. is certainly of value, but probably not germaine to this discussion, i.e. we're not going to sell off the Berks campus to pay this fine.  The University also makes money on the sale of merchandise, but I do not know that figure, and I don't know where that money is spent in the general budget.

So if the NCAA demands that the money not come from taxpayers, then it must come from the other four sources:  donations, tuition, investment income, or tax dollars.

Each year, the total budget is allocated from monies from these various sources.  Two possibilities then exist.  Penn State will either have to decrease it's operating budget by $12 million dollars a year for five years, or expect a higher contribution from the sources other than taxes, to make up the difference.  It's like the Laws of Thermodynamics--matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form. 

It is not reasonable to suggest a $12 million dollar increase in tuition rates, or to allow enough extra new students to enroll to make up that difference.  Besides, to accommodate that many extra students, the total budget would also have to expend money for more professors, classrooms, etc.

And while the powers that be insist that the money will not come from taxes, that leaves just donations or investment income (interest on money previously donated presumably) to cover the cost.

Now the Nittany Lion club has reported profits of $8-12 million dollars in recent years (income in excess of expenses) so perhaps there is some pool of money in the athletic department to draw this from.  If not, I don't think the athletic department by itself can afford that cash particularly in light of bowl bans and loss of revenue related to the sanctions.

So either Penn State will have to cut other sports programs, or money will have to be diverted from other sources to cover expenses that were previously covered by the athletic department.

But the point you bring up is valid . . . "Does the NCAA have the legal authority to impose financial damages on a governmental entity like a state funded university like Penn State?"

I don't think so, but I am not a lawyer.  I don't think the NCAA had any business in this whatsoever.  I cannot off the top of my head recall the last time a school was penalized financially by the NCAA--i.e. a direct fine.  They have shut programs down (SMU) and they vacate wins, limit scholarships, and bowl appearances etc.  But I think fining a member institution is breaking fairly unexplored ground.  Certainly the dollar amount is extraordinary.  I don't know the NCAA by-laws well enough to know what each member agrees to when they sign on.

What appears quite clear, though, is that our leaders at Penn State have no intention of fighting this battle with the NCAA.  I don't know if some other organization can take up the torch or not.  If it is a violation of state or federal law, then the US Attorney General or State AG will have to handle that.  Here in PA, though, I ain't holding my breath.

At the end of the day, Penn State broke no NCAA rule, the only two people associated with the football team (McQueary and Paterno) both REPORTED the incident, and the penalties do nothing to help the victims that the University hasn't already offered.

As I overheard today . . .

 I think my football team was raped . . . but I don't know who to report it to!

Now Is OUR Time!

Penn State Blue Band Drum Major Ian Kenny wrote a very eloquent blog entry about his thoughts and moving on . . .

There is one thing I am certain about - one unmistakable fact of this entire scandal that most people outside of Centre Country, Pennsylvania come up way short on. I personally did not cover up, condone, approve, and allow Jerry Sandusky's actions to happen. Neither did any other student at the university, neither did any professor, and neither did any fan of Penn State. It's unfortunate enough that the lives of at least ten children were tarnished in an unfathomable way. What I can’t understand is why the media and the rest of the world are trying to pull the students of the university under the bus is beyond me.

“Our students will be the ones to bring us out of this.” It brings to mind a recent series of TV and print advertisements for the university with the seemingly ever-present logo with “It’s Your Time” encased in a circle. Well, it really is our time now. While we don’t have the individual power to make the big decisions, or undo what has been done, we do have the power to be heard and do great things. We have the chance to go out into the world and dedicate our lives to making a good name for our university.

Are we going to give in to the terrorists?  A plane flies overhead saying "Take down the statue, or we will!"  And our school president and BOT announce they will "make a decision" about the statue within a week.  Seriously, if a plane flew over Virginia with a banner that read, "Take down the Washington Monument, or we will," what would your reaction be?  Would Obama announce that he and Congress will announce a decision within a week?  If you think the statue should come down, what in the wide, wide world of sports are you thinking?

"We Have Nothing to Fear but fear itself.  And ESPN."

What decision is to be made?  If you take it down, the terrorists have won.  The vocal minority have won.  The media has won.

And what of the victims?  Have they won?  Does this make them feel better?  Does this in any way, shape, or form diminish their past or present suffering?  One victim and his mother are angry at Paterno.  But another victim allegedly stated that he respected Joe Paterno, Penn State and hoped that his testimony--his day in court--his justice--wouldn't condemn the football program or harm it in any way.  Okay, I paraphrased that, but you get the picture.  I'm sorry but I went back to the message board to find a link for that, but I couldn't.  Maybe I made it up.  Maybe someone is covering it up.  I digress.

Respecting Joe Paterno for his accomplishments and enjoying Penn State football games do not mean that one condones what happened, or pedophilia in general.  I respect that mother's right to hate to Joe Paterno.  I hope and pray that she respects my right (and perhaps hundreds of thousands of others' rights) to celebrate the good that Joe Paterno did.

There is absolutely no one on the current team that had any responsibility for what happened or how it was handled.  Larry Johnson?  Vanderlinden?  Spider?  Give me a break.  The players and recruits and the new coaches had nothing to do with any of this.  The fans of the program had nothing to do with this.  The business and economy of Centre County had nothing to do with this and should not be penalized by a "death penalty."  A death penalty for the football program is a death warrant for sure for many local businesses and for a fair number of the other sports programs at the University which depend on football revenue to finance their scholarships and expenses.

So is it all about the money?  Well, sadly, a large part of it is.  But is it all about football?  Is it all about the football culture?  Or could it just possibly be all about Sandusky himself.  Or a way to deflect attention from the other conspirators in this cover-up like The Second Mile and perhaps Corbett?  As far as the scandal is concerned, the players in this Greek tragedy are no longer part of the institution.  Paterno is dead.  Spanier--gone.  McQueary---gone.  Schultz--retired and awaiting judgment.  Curley--on leave and likewise awaiting justice.  Sandusky--in jail.  But Corbett is still an ex officio member of the BOT.  Interesting.

Is it really necessary to tear down that statue (or move it)?  Who does that hurt?  Joe is dead.  It will hurt his family.  It will hurt some fans.  Maybe past players.  But does it really help the victims?  Isn't that what is important?  We keep hearing that football isn't more important than the safety of children (it isn't and I wouldn't argue otherwise), but if that is the case, explain to me in rational terms how moving this statue is going to help healing and not hurt other innocent people.

Is it the fans' fault that Paterno allegedly made a bad decision?

Is it his family's fault?

And will the terrorists stop there?  I fear not.  The next demand will be to have his name expunged from the record books.  Take the statue.  Take the wins.  Take the record.  Take the name off the library.  Take his books out of the bookstore, his image off anything within a 100 miles of the campus, and we will never say his name again.  You can almost feel the relief of the victims now with this weight is gone. 

I'm sorry if that sounded insensitive. . . it's sarcasm idiots.

The statue needs to stand.  Funny thing, I never thought the thing was appropriate in the first place.  But It's now a symbol of just what Paterno did that was great; not what he allegedy didn't do or failed to do.  He was a great coach and did more for young people in his lifetime than most of us will ever dream of.  That statue was put there because he made Penn State a better place, not because he was a terrific criminal investigator who brought down surreptitious sex offenders.   His inability to do that should not be the reason the statue is removed.

Likewise, if the BOT or the NCAA sanction the football program, then they are WRONG.  Don't give me that lack of institutional control garbage.  Check it out.  The NCAA is the National Collegiate ATHLETIC association.  This isn't Miami where players are involved in Ponzi schemes.  This isn't about free tattoos or special treatment of players.  Cuz guess what haters?  No football players were involved.  Hellooo, McFly?  It ain't an athletic problem and the NCAA needs to tuck their tail and get the hell out of Dodge before someone drops a house on their head.

Why do NCAA sanctions not stop programs from breaking the rules?  Does sanctioning Penn State somehow magically guarantee that this will never happen again?  If an NCAA sanction means that the school will never go astray again, I guess we can be pretty sure that Ohio State will never cheat again.  Ever.  Yeah, like that's bloody likely going to happen.

So not only are you trying to approach a criminal offense and prevent it with athletic sanctions, but you know deep down that it won't keep something like this from ever happening again.

All you really do is hurt innocent people.  Is that what it has come to in this country?  Two wrongs to make a right?  An eye for an eye?  God forbid, I'm an eye surgeon and I don't want to be that busy!

And do we really want the NCAA using their authority to execute criminal justice?  If they even sniff or play games with wrist slaps here, it sets a dangerous precedent.  Any coach or player that gets arrested and convicted could bring sanctions to the program.  Is that really the direction we want to go here?

And again, if Penn State makes a token gesture to limit scholarships or not play in a bowl game, does that really help any of the victims one tiny iota?

Really?  Ask yourself that.  Because if it isn't about the victims, what is it about?

It is our time, Penn State . . .

Stop bickering about statues, and figure out how to fix the administrative system that led to this problem.

Healing is not about HATE.  Help the victims; not the haters.

Are we mice or Lions?

Are we . . . Penn State?