Pea-Nits Cartoon

Apology Not Accepted

After the Media Storm . . .

NCAA Declares US Constitution Unconstitutional

Well, they may as well have.

According to Satan ESPN,

The NCAA has hit Penn State with a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998, the organization said Monday morning.

Did the NCAA even investigate this?  Do they realize that the charges actually facing PSU administrators have not even been proven in a court of law yet?  Does our US Constitution not guarantee us a right to due process?  I guess that doesn't matter if the brainiacs at ESPN believe that the football culture needs to change.

Fried Nittany Lion is Today's Special!

Here's a blog entry by a LAWYER about the situation:

According to ESPN and other media organizations, NCAA president Mark Emmert has elected to issue sanctions on Monday (July 23, 2012) against Pennsylvania State University, including a loss of scholarships and a multiple-year bowl ban. If the media reports are true, then the NCAA has charted an unprecedented, and perhaps unconstitutional, course of action. Federal and state courts have consistently held that membership organizations, including athletics associations like the NCAA, are required to provide procedures that protect their members against arbitrary and irrational action. Thus, an NCAA rule or decision cannot be applied unreasonably so that it creates different classes of schools. Accordingly, any NCAA sanction against Penn State at this stage may potentially violate federal and state notions of due and fair process for several reasons, including, but not limited to:

1.The conduct of Penn State and its employees, no matter how egregious, is not a violation of an existing NCAA rule. In fact, according to available information, the NCAA has never interpreted, or issued sanctions under, existing rules to address only criminal violations (or the cover-up of criminal violations). Further, the NCAA has chosen to make criminal activity an NCAA rules-violation in limited circumstances (i.e., Bylaw 10.2 (Knowledge of Use of Banned Drugs) and Bylaw 31.2.3.4 (Banned Drugs))—and the activities described in the report by former FBI director Louis J. Freeh are not addressed in the NCAA Division I Manual.

2.The NCAA did not establish and publish a process and procedure to address the issues relevant in Penn State’s case. Instead, the NCAA is utilizing an ad-hoc process that has not been explained fully to the membership or the public.

3.The NCAA is not adhering to its existing enforcement processes and procedures.

4.The NCAA is treating Penn State differently than other schools that were involved in sexual assault scandals or other serious criminal misconduct.

5.The NCAA failed to provide Penn State: (a) a written notice of allegations; (b) an opportunity to respond to the notice of allegations; (c) a hearing before an NCAA infractions committee to address the allegations; and (d) a process for an appeal of NCAA findings and sanctions.

As legal counsel for colleges and universities before NCAA committees, we are extremely concerned about the possible NCAA actions and urge the organization to comply with its existing processes and procedures to address the Penn State sexual abuse scandal. In addition, based on our review of the Freeh report, the issues facing Penn State are best left in the expert hands of the criminal and civil courts, the federal Departments of Justice and Education, the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the relevant accrediting agencies.

The BOT and President Erickson will not fight this.  I don't know why.  Perhaps they are covering up an even bigger story, but I speculate there.

I can only hope that a class action suit driven by alumni or State College business interests can put an end to this madness.

ESPN thinks that Penn State needs to change their football culture.  well, Penn State fans, welcome to Mao's, Emmerts, the Cultural Revolution.

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?

If It Cost $6.5 Million, Is It Really Freeh?

Joe clearly voted for Al Gore!

By now, you have probably read and/or heard about the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State regarding the Sandusky scandal.  Chances are pretty good you heard some misinformation.

I'm a little late in getting this all posted as I was on vacation when the report was leaked released.  That evening, I sat at a table in a restaurant near Virginia Beach with a television above my head that paraded a variety of images as it attempted to "inform" the viewers.  I saw the Penn State logo.  Joe Paterno.  The football team.  I don't recall ever seeing Sandusky.  Wasn't he the guy actually found guilty of a crime???  But I digress.

You can read the Freeh report here.  Interestingly, I couldn't get the download to work on the actual website:  http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/.  Good luck with that.

There are those, such as fellow blogger The Nittany Turkey, who say that I should just get on with my grief and the Kübler-Ross stages thereof and accept the report, rather than trying to criticize it.  Well, that's not bloody likely gonna happen on this blog.

The problem is not that I have a blind, overwhelming devotion to Joe Paterno.  Although I respected and admired him immensely, I am more a devotee of truth.  And while the general public may accept the Freeh Report as unshakable, undeniable proof . . . I, for one, do not.

First of all, how do you spend $6.5 million on a report?  Seriously.  In an age where the Federal Deficit is measured in trillions, most of us pass over that little piece of information as though it is negligible.  It is expected.  It wouldn't be a good report if it wasn't over priced.

If you hired a thousand workers to process the information (and I doubt they hired that many) that amounts to $6,500 per person.  Another way to look at it:  the report is 267 pages long.  That amounts to $24,344.57 per page, and the actual report didn't start until seven pages of contents.  They supposedly interviewed 430 people--that's $15,116.28 per interview.)

BUT they did not interview Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Jerry Sandusky, Schultz, outside legal counsel Wendell Courtney, PSU Director of Public Safety Tom Harmon, NCIS star Mark Harmon, and Mike McQueary, among others.

Chief Investigator Freeh

Isn't that like doing a report on the New Testament, but not including anything from Jesus or his disciples?

We interview everyone EXCEPT the actual participants . . . and call it FACT?  Are we as a society really that stupid or gullible???

Do you know that Karen Peetz, Chairman of the Board of Trustees is/was a member of the special investigations task force?  Her name is buried in small print at the bottom of page 8 in footnote a.  Doesn't that present a bias?  Conflict of interest?  If you were investigating Enron (Exxon--name any major corporation that did something wrong) and you put the Chairman of the Board on the investigating committee, wouldn't there be public outcry?

I could go on and on, but Marc Rubin has a fairly good analysis of the faults of the report on Tom In Paine.

Here are a few excerpts:

The great irony of the Freeh Report is that one of its most quoted statements was that there were "red flags all over the place" that should have alerted people to Sandusky and were ignored.

But that applies even more so to the Freeh Report itself except the evidence of the report being incompetetent, dishonest and the product of polititcal hackery is more obvious than any red flags Freeh claims wee apparent with Sandusky. And as expected these red flags are being ignored by the news media who have their own ground to defend, their own myths to perpetuate and then there are those who will swallow almost anything they are told by the media.

As for ?Freeh himself, the Board of Trustees who has botched every possible decison from the beginning couldnt have made a worse decision in choosing Freeh to do the investigation. As pointed out here the other day, Freeh had the reputation in Washington DC of being a political hack. He was excoriated by former Republican governor Tom Kane as Chairman of the 911 Commission who tore Freeh to shreds for his incompetence as FBI director in his handling of terrorist related intelligence prior to 911. And as recently as April of 2012, appearing before a congressional committee, Freeh was battered by the committee investigating the bankruptcy of MF Global for which Freeh and his group were overseeing, for Freeh's refusal to turn over relevant documents to federal regulators.


All indications were that the Freeh Report was going to be the product of a political hack. And the report did not disappoint.

Freeh forgets one important fact: within days of the story breaking back in November, Paterno called a press conference where he was going to tell everything he knew, everything he heard and everything he did regarding the Sandusky incident and was going to take questions from reporters. It was Penn State university officials and the Board of Trustees who forced him to cancel it. So right from the beginning who does the evidence show was trying to shield Penn State from bad publicity? Joe Paterno or the Board of Trustees who paid Freeh $ 6 million for his report?

Freeh claims a 1998 email from Curley to Schultz proves that Paterno knew all about Sandusky . . . To an ethical investigator that email would be a lead NOT proof. Why does Curley refer to Paterno as "Joe" in other emails and "Coach" in this one? How do we know this relates to the Sandusky investigation involving child abuse? Where are the corroborating emails that make this clear when on would think there would be many? Where are Harmon's emails confirming this? And most importantly why does the Freeh report say " the reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno".
 
One other crucial point: the 1998 investigation which included a psychologist interviewing both Sandusky and the children he showered with and said their accounts were the same found that NO ABUSE had taken place. If one wants to argue that Paterno knew of the investigation then one has to accept he knew about the results of the investigation and those results exonerated Sandusky of any wrong doing. In that case there would be nothing for Paterno to do.

And there is much more in the original article.  Later, in another blog post, he writes:

On July 7, Don Vanatta, a writer for ESPN Magazine, writing on the leaked emails wrote:
'A source who has reveiwed all the early 2001 emails said that the few that have been leaked 'are definitely out of context' "

Vanatta went on to say that his source who has seen all the emails suggested that the one email used by CNN to make insinuations about Paterno was selectively leaked to put everyone in the worst possible light.

John Ziegler echoes many of these problems with the evidence of this report.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand how people can look at the whole picture here and not have serious issues.

Why were the emails leaked?  For what purpose?  The Freeh Report states that it evaluated 3.5 million pieces of electronic information but we are going to bludgeon Paterno in his grave over one or two?

Personally, when it was first released, I inferred from the email that Curley--on his own--decided to change the game plan and not report.  Curley was the one uncomfortable.  There was no "we" in that email.  Curley's a bright man.  He may not have been able to schedule a decent football opponent, but he ran a big business at Penn State and if he thought Paterno was trying to coerce things against the others, then he would have said so.  I don't think Joe used email.  Joe would not know what he said in those emails.

Now all this is not to say that there aren't some redeeming things to come of this report.

First of all, child molestation is a horrible, despicable crime.  It is important for Penn State to implement some policies and procedures so that people know what to do when/if something like this occurs.  I personally think that a big part of this whole mess was that no one was adequately prepared to evaluate the situation and make a decision to report or not report.

I continue to maintain that it is far too easy for us in 2012, with the benefit of hindsight, i.e. knowing all the different victim scenarios, to condemn those involved in 2001.  We will never know what Joe actually said to Curley.  We won't ever know what McQueary told them, although we might know what he thinks he recalls telling them and there is an important difference there.  Hopefully, the upcoming trials of Curley and Schultz will clear some of this up, but probably not.

Secondly, if the BOT wants to throw their weight around, then they better get a better handle on things.  There are people that automatically assume that Joe HAD to know everything.  I feel as though there had to be some BOT members, perhaps with Second Mile ties, that HAD to know something was going on.  But it's not clear to me whether their emails were included in all that "evidence."

Mistakes WERE made.  By people.  Perish the thought.  Unfortunately, innocent children suffered at the hands of Sandusky.  I honestly don't think Sandusky would have been stopped in 2001, anymore than he was stopped in 1998.  The only way I see a guaranteed different outcome is if McQueary had brought police into the shower that night.  Without a victim and with only his wishy-washy what-exactly-did-I-tell-Joe/my Dad/Dr. Dranov/Curley testimony, I'm not sure what anyone could have reasonably concluded at that time.  But extrapolating those mistakes to prove a cover-up to protect Penn State is like trying to decipher the intent of the voter from an ambiguous ballot.

Finally, let's pray that something like this never happens again.

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!

Image from LA Times Photography.