So It Goes. The big news of the weekend was the Joe Paterno interview by Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post. Breathlessly hyped as a blockbuster, it was anything but. If you were the last remaining person on this blue earth that hadn't made up your mind on Joe Paterno's role in how Penn State collectively handled Jerry Sandusky's alleged 2002 rape of a child in the PSU locker room, Jenkins' interview likely did nothing to sway you in either direction.
The interview was carefully monitored by attorney Wick Sollers (who does some criminal work, but mostly handles high-profile civil litigation) and PR/communications expert Dan McGinn of TMG Strategies, which should probably consider re-upping that GoDaddy.com account. The likelihood of juicy new information coming out of the Jenkins interview was minimal from the very start, and the entire interview must be viewed through the lens of legal self-preservation and the rehabilitation of JoePa's reputation.
Paterno stated that he didn't feel "adequate" to deal with the alleged acts related to him by Mike McQueary, and Jenkins used the oft-repeated Paterno quote, "in hindsight, I wish I had done more." What we never find out from the interview is exactly what Paterno wishes he had done, or why he thought an athletic director and a financial bureaucrat were more well-trained to handle the situation.
Some Paterno supporters continue to believe that he did enough -- whether that is characterized as "bare legal minimum" or "put McQueary in touch with the nominal head of campus police and got out of the way" is up to the individual. Paterno thinks he should have done more, but what does that mean? In the continuing public trial of Joe Paterno's reputation and legacy, that's a rather crucial bit. Jenkins either never asked the questions, or Sollers and McGinn never allowed the answers.
Regardless of your opinion on the various players in this tragic story, it's safe to say that one of the uniting themes throughout has been a desire for Paterno to get his side of the story on the record. Even those who believed that Paterno needed to be removed as head coach still wanted him to publicly and forcefully respond to the allegations that he looked the other way while Sandusky continued his abuses. The Sally Jenkins interview was a heavily filtered attempt to rehabilitate Paterno's public reputation -- perhaps an effective tactic aimed at the casual observer, but of little use to those of us who have followed every detail of the scandal.
Rape And A Man. I'm trying to view this quote in a light most favorable to Paterno:
"You know, [McQueary] didn’t want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it."
Many in the media are interpreting this as Paterno claiming to be unfamiliar with the entire concept of a male raping another male. If that's what JoePa meant, it's wholly ridiculous. Others are using this quote as support to the notion that McQueary didn't specifically relay what he allegedly saw in the showers in 2002. I hope they're right, because the alternative paints Paterno as implausibly naïve to a world of which he had such great knowledge and perspective -- and even Paterno's greatest detractors don't believe that.
As expected, media reaction to the WaPo interview was swift and voluminous:
Mike Poorman gives us an explanation as to why Sally Jenkins was selected for the job:
Daughter Jenkins, 51, wrote two books with Lance Armstrong, providing the anti-cancer-crusading, Tour de France-winning cyclist with the pen to use against the swords of legions who have alleged Lance may Livestrong but he’s a doper.
So she is well-versed in dichotomies, incongruencies and conundrums. But does she know Joe? Not so much.
"I’ve only talked to Joe Paterno twice in 25 years," she told a pair of enterprising Penn State student radio journalists, Willie Jungles and Patrick Woo, on Saturday. "This was the second time."
...
"I was told (it was) because I had written one of the few sensible columns about the Jerry Sandusky grand jury and all the events that then followed the tumultuous days," Jenkins told Jungels and Woo. "They had felt I had taken a more measured tone in a column that I had written and that I had thought things more rationally than some people."
Bernard Fernandez of Philadelphia Daily News expresses a sentiment shared by nearly all Paterno supporters:
My opinion is that Sandusky's arrest presented certain members of the Board of Trustees with an opportunity to finally rid themselves of Paterno, who had become too old, too entrenched and too intractable in the way he did things to fit their vision of the future. He was the last dinosaur, a relic of a fading era who had to sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
The York Daily Record got a hold of Matt Johnson, Scott FItzkee, and Tisen Thomas.
Good news! Jerry Sandusky is "greatly dismayed" by Paterno's firing. Guess we can all go home now.
John Dudley of GoErie.com goes Black Hat:
Many people will continue to give Paterno the benefit of the doubt, even after these absurd statements. They will insist he did exactly what was required of him by passing on what he knew to his superiors, even if, admittedly, he waited a day to do so. They will continue to view him as a fallen icon, a frail man battling cancer and nearing the end of a long life that began so long ago that he couldn't possibly be expected to comprehend the atrocities of a sick, new world. And that will be horse manure.
Because the most telling part of Paterno's statement was that he was afraid, only you have to read between the lines to suspect what really scared him. It wasn't procedure Paterno feared he might jeopardize, it was the cash cow that is Penn State football.
Over at the Four Letter, Gene Wojciechowski still isn't buying:
Paterno didn't follow his own advice. For someone so obsessed with detail, he failed to fully recognize the impact of those 2002 Sandusky allegations. Either that, or he chose to ignore them.Guts? He showed the bare minimum. He didn't report the allegations to police. He showed a perfunctory interest in the disposition of the in-house investigation (such as it was) involving one of his former coaches, in his football facility and on his watch.
Paterno should listen to himself. Better yet, he should ask himself this: If a player had offered Paterno the same excuses and justifications, what would he have told that player?
Did the Jenkins interview change anyone's opinion on this ordeal, or are we all hopelessly entrenched in our positions?
0 recs | 233 comments
Glad you didn't feel the need to editorialize
Wholly ridiculous > ridiculous btw.
My mother, significantly younger than Joe and pretty worldly/well traveled, contends that she did not know that lesbians existed until she was in her 30s. I find it impossible to believe that she had not encountered one before then (she was taught by nuns for God’s sake), but believe her that she was sheltered from or failed to grasp the concept.
I simply think that it’s possible that certain concepts, if not discovered by a certain age and pre-internet, were likely to go undiscovered until they landed on your doorstep with the marching band behind them.
kijana's acl - January 16, 2012
I wholly agree with you Kijana
I was discussing this the other day. Imagine if you had to tell your grandfather the exact details inteh GJ report. How would he handle that, or even comprehend it. Mine, who if still alive would be in his 90s, slightly older than Joe, was an airman in WWII, and construction forman, and I highly doubt he would have understood or comprehended all of this if I had to tell him about it, like if i was MM.
To just assume that everyone immediately knows what all of this means, in deluding themselves. Sometimes those from a different time and generation, over 80, do live in a differnt world with differnt meanings and comprehensions for events and happenings, so to speak.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
Crazy talk
This was 2002 we were talking about; and the Paternos are Catholic (my grandparents used to sometimes walk to church with Sue). This is something Catholics were aware of then, even if it was to put their head in the sand and blame it on teh gayz.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Do yourself a favor
Take the GJ report and go to the nearest retirement home and read it to someone of Joe’s previous age, and see how they respond. And no it is nnot something that is immediately know by everyone, and just saying that this is true since he was Catholic, is also ludicris and offense to me, since I am Catholic and we are not all walking around knowing exactly how these things happen.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
Blame it on teh gayz.
That’s the thing. People of that age barely even understand what being gay is, let alone being able to wrap their mind about an adult being interested in a child.
If the Paternos just blamed the Catholic Church scandal on “the gays”, then Paterno had even less reason to suspect Sandusky being a molester since he was married. To a woman.
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
You miss the point
Paterno tries to come off as if he wasn’t aware it was even possible for a man to molest a boy. This is nonsense – it has happened throughout history, and was well known to Catholics by this time too.
The difference is that the Catholics who had blind faith in the church hierarchy did not pretend the molestation didn’t happen or couldn’t happen but rather blamed it on teh gayz.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Your completely wrong on the history part
I will leave it there. And if you try and argue it I will just send you my degree’s in history, and you can do my job for me.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
I hope you're not suggesting that M1EK do homework...
leeharvey418 - January 16, 2012
Load of crap.
Greece, for one.
Wave your degree around all you want. Maybe learn how to use apostrophes first, though. If a physicist came here and insisted the sun rotated around the earth, I’d be similarly aggressive in my challenge.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
You are a idiot
I am so glad I don’t live in your world of complete fantasy where everyone but yourself is correct.
What does Greece have to do with anything? Are you talking about Ancient Greece? If you are, you are also incorrect, and can cite you 10 books to prove my point all by an Oxford Scholar and others.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
three seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
M1EK - January 16, 2012
You cite Wikipedia
And I am supposed to be immpressed.
Fail
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
It's an obvious rejoinder
to your lie that pederasty wasn’t known throughout history.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
No it isn't
Since it is not citing sources that are accurate and new to the arguemnt over the issue of pederasty and its conception wihtin the society it was involved in.
Wrong, fail.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
Sorry.
You were caught in a lie. I suggest you move on.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
LMAO@U.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
You were caught in using bad facts
To prove a point. What lie did i report to? That you were wrong? No it wasn’t a lie.
I forgot, your are all knowing and all wise and are here to save us all from our idiot preconcieved opinions. Get over yourself, your not that great.
I guess I better apologize for that right away, so I don’t get censored or booted or whatever.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
The facts
were confirmed by wikipedia – which although not good enough to be cited in a research paper, is a plenty authoritative enough source in this context as it has links to dozens of instances of primary research.
I suggest you grow up a little. You were wrong.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Sounds like a personal attack
to me: M1EK contending that Aries is immature.
Where are the mods when you really need them?
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Just uncivil.
kijana's acl - January 16, 2012
They are not good to be cited in a research paper
And now your personally attacking me by calling me a child.
Nice move. I am done with you.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
Several levels up
I have been trolled? I have lost.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
You're freaking ridiculous
Kyle_Martin - January 16, 2012
And to prove my point
I can now go into that website and change it all to what I want. That is the point, Wikipedia is not a good place to find anything.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
Be sure to update
Craig James’ site again. I think someone deleted the fact that he killed five hookers while he was at SMU.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
That is never not funny
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
LOL.
It’s a chuckle!
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Please explain about Craig James and the Ho's. I have no idea what that's about. I'd love to know.
Ab4PSU - January 16, 2012
I came to that party late, Ab
but one of the first things I learned about when I came to BSD is that Craig James allegedly killed five hookers when he was at SMU.
It seems to be part of the BSD folklore — maybe one of the old-timers can share the total history.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Started at EDSBS
The intent is to say “Craig James killed 5 hookers, allegedly,” or any other untrue sentence that keeps the untrue words “craig james killed 5 hookers” in order. The result is that google now predicts you would like to research craig james killed 5 hookers when you type in “craig james”.
SEO – catch the fever!
Truck O'Saurus - January 16, 2012 via Android app
Thanks for the background, Truck!
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
For point in fact
For hundreds of years, people did think that the sun rotated around the earth, until smart astronomers and scientists proved them wrong. So your analogue is incorrect and not used well.
You failed.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
FTFY.
You failed — again.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Catholics pretended it didn't happen.
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
Not the same thing
as being unaware it was even possible.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Right. Argument nullfied, abandon point and deflect to a different one that is winnable.
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
No.
Resisting attempts by you to move the goalposts.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
So do you always project your methods on everyone else?
Kyle_Martin - January 16, 2012
Joe's Catholic
He was wholly ignorant to the legions of priest-“youngster” scandals that have scarred the church throughout his lifetime?
spakajewia - January 16, 2012 via mobile
Yeah, those were pretty often denied by the church and parishoners until the past decade
kijana's acl - January 16, 2012
also, the federal definition of rape
didn’t include rape of a man until 2011. Yes, until 2011, no federal rape charges could be brought on someone who raped a man.
It isn’t “wholly ridiculous.” Perhaps unlikely, but not “wholly ridiculous”
Cari Greene - January 16, 2012
Gene Wo-wo-won't-read-that-article
Artiefufkin10 - January 16, 2012
Good call
It was horrendous.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
No reason to thin anything on ESPN would
be any better than horrendous.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
It's not just ESPN
The heavy breathing of columnists whooping it up and diving on the pile while taking down a “holier-than-thou” moral icon is going on just about everywhere.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
Oh I know.
Can’t get through a day without it. ABC had a lead in on their Sunday Morning news show that said “Joe Paterno opens up about why he didn’t stop Jerry Sandusky from abusing children.”
I was like, that shows a level of stupidity that trumps the worst I have seen on here.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
Heh. I know what you're saying
But it’s not “stupid.” It’s totally intentional.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
Well I think in most cases it is intentional.
But the girl who read it was so cute and sweet I will assume she was just stupid and the copy editor was being intentional.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
Haha
Nice.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
He's a freaking idiot!
From aurabass’ latest post:
“1) An investigation like the 1998 investigation could have been initiated.
Claiming that an investigation of Jerry Sandusky might have harmed the football program or the university seems odd given that Sandusky was investigated just 3 years prior to the 2002 incident when he was actually employed by PSU. No harm to PSU came from that investigation did it?”
http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2012/1/16/2688262/how-deep-is-the-rabbit-hole-the-second-mile-down
TonyLion - January 16, 2012
Exactly, which is why Schultz should have initiated another investigation
The first one was handled with care, and he should have allowed the proper authorities to do so again. I am curious to hear what exactly Schultz did do, as it could be more than we suspect.
psualum9931 - January 16, 2012
"No harm to PSU came from that investigation"
Only because Gricar chose not to prosecute. The incumbent defensive coordinator at Penn State getting charged with child molestation? That would have been lethal.
1LisHell - January 16, 2012
I don't see that to be the case if what everyone in the media, message boards, etc think.
They are upset that there was a “cover up” “woeful ignorance”, etc, etc. It wouldn’t have been the PR statement of the year that’s for sure, but if Joe and Mike reported a claim and it came out to be true, then what would be seen negatively, except Jerry and maybe CPS for not even putting Jerry on a watch list.
I highly doubt Penn State would have dominated the media cycle, that Joe would be fired, that two officials were arrested, and our president fired- for doing the right thing??? It would have been a completely different story.
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
and what was there for them to think the same outcome wouldn't occur?
Cari Greene - January 16, 2012
A football team (and much of the sport itself) unknowingly employed and venerated a man that molested children
and when that information became known they did the right thing to put a stop to it and ensure that justice was done.
How exactly would that narrative have been lethal?
Nittany_Ryan - January 16, 2012
But he hates child abusers
You're just a cultist.kijana's acl - January 16, 2012
Nothing new
Basically everything we already knew. Although I was glad he finally said something after letting lots of other people defend him for months it was about time he finally said something.
He knew enough, that excuse about not knowing that molesters even exist just doesn’t hold water. And its very difficult to believe he knew nothing of the 1998 case.
And I say those things wearing blue tinted glasses.
coop247 - January 16, 2012
Why is this difficult to believe?
Police investigations aren’t exactly public knowledge, so you’re going along the “Joe Paterno is the most powerful man in the state and has the power to subpoena closed police investigations just because he feels like it” route?
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
Agreed
Child molestation investigations are handled very discretely. False accusations can ruin people’s lives. It isn’t as if people were shouting from the rooftops about this. Once he was found to have not committed a crime, I’d imagine this wouldn’t really have been spoken about again.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
You have to weigh this against
the claims that rumors were flying all over State College about Sandusky. Note, this is an unverified claim, but lots of people have made it.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
That seems like a coping mechanism to me.
Everyone was shocked by this whole situation, and so inserted a “I thought there was something wrong with him years ago” idea into it to lessen the blow.
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
No one wants to say they suspected it and didn’t make it known. Probably makes them feel like an enabler, accomplice, etc. I don’t think that’s a rational thought, but I can’t tell people how to feel.
And, for the record, I’d never heard anyone believe Sandusky was a bad guy until these broke.
blackjackfishtaco - January 16, 2012
Maybe.
That’s certainly within the realm of possibility. I had never heard the rumors myself; in fact, I made a comment on Chris’ old blog when the GJ first popped up which makes me shudder now to even think about it.
You’d have to ask those who claim they heard the rumors that Sandusky was weird with kids. I know I’ve seen them mentioned here.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
I was at Penn State during that time.
I didn’t hear a single rumor of this. Ever.
Those rumors sound a lot like people trying to make themselves feel better for being fooled by him. I find it difficult to believe that multiple people who were investigated by the GJ would have committed perjury, with no gain, by denying that they were aware of the 1998 charges.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
I lived in State College from 1995-2004
I never heard a rumor that Sandusky was molesting kids. I wasn’t a football insider but talked with a few football managers and friends of players. I’m surprised if it was flying all over it never once came up in conversation.
psualum9931 - January 16, 2012
I know a lot of people from SC that new Sandusky back then.
All of them are shocked. This is wholly unsubstantiated “let’s make a story up to fit our preconceived notion” BS.
psume06 - January 16, 2012 via mobile
This isn't people claiming they knew rumors.
This is media speculating that people had to have heard rumors. I have not seen a single source claim they were aware of rumors. This is merely a subtle guilt-by-association tactic used by the media. It supports the narrative they are promoting.
Think of all the speculation you validate by bringing the conversation to people hearing rumors. It validates that the allegations happened, that everyone understood what was happening, and that they were not actively trying to stop it. The fact that this is guilt by absencia is even more sickening. Until every person in State College denies these allegations, the claim still stands and those validations are still accurate.
Succss With Honor Always - January 16, 2012
not seen a single source claim
they were aware of rumors
except M1EK:
(See his post at 2:03 just below.)
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
This is my point.
If you make this claim, support it with evidence. Show me an identified source that claims they definitively heard rumors. The whole problem with the media and M1EK is that they place the burden of proof on everyone else. They are arguing speculation with speculation that has not been discredited by evidence.
Succss With Honor Always - January 16, 2012
Wow that is horribly dangerous thinking.
If you are a witness to something inappropriate with a child, or told of a first hand account, “rumors” should absolutely play no factor in your decision moving forward. That is how you ruin someone’s life with a preconceived notion. Completely irresponsible line of thinking.
PSUinBOSSton - January 16, 2012
No.
Rumors shouldn’t convict anybody. But they can make you aware – and again, there were claims made by people that there were comments made about how Sandusky hung around kids so much.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
There have just been a number
of posts from people in/around SC and the Penn State football program over time that totally debunk your statement about the rumors, M1EK. You might want to drop the Goebbels’ approach.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Like I said below.
If this were an actual rumor in 1998, I can’t imagine that Joe or Mel wouldn’t have heard about it. Would they have shared it with me then, if it were serious, probably not. But in the intervening years I would have heard it. It’s simply too small a town.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
Thanks, jesse.
but your statement does not fit the haters’ agenda, so will be overlooked or summarily dismissed.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Here's one
http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2011/12/28/2665861/penn-states-coaching-disaster#86894791
Note this is from OctaShields, and he asserts that he heard some rumors himself. Doesn’t place it in 1998, nor does it definitely place it after 1998.
If you lose the attitude I might spend some time looking for more.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Kiss my ass --
how’s that for “attitude”?
Expecting to hear from Chris in 5, 4, 3, . . . .
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
And you wonder
why I resist doing a bunch of homework.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
That post is about OS's opinion
About what Bradley might have heard.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
M1EK - January 16, 2012
He'll be around eventually
I’ll ask him. I stand by what I wrote about the rumors.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
BTW
it’s a pain in the ass to look that up. I just searched here, on Sandusky rumors, and even there there’s obviously a lot. But I’m being absolutely honest with you when I say I heard from more than one person that claimed rumors were flying around State College at various points in time about Sandusky long before the March story about the GJ.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
I believe you heard rumors
I don’t believe those were substantiated. But we’ll see what OS says.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
I called home.
The first time Mel heard about this was about 18 months ago. Scuttlebut and rumor, but it did pre-date the revelation that there was an investigation.
As to 1998 her answer was an unequivocal no. And in 1998, one of us would have heard it. We discussed literally 15 different ways we would have heard it, and know people who probably would have known then (if it were public knowledge) that were shocked by the revelations.
Nothing is impossible, but this is really unlikely.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
Jesse.
Note the investigation was allegedly conducted over a three-year period, culminating in Nov 2011. I offer that rumors might have emanated as a result of that on-going investigation rather than directly tied to JS’ conduct back in the late 90’s/early 00’s.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
I was there.
And I don’t want people thinking that this was something people were talking about all over town in the late 90’s early 00’s.
Once a State Grand Jury gets convened, it’s coming out. But out in 2009, versus out in 1998 every different as it relates to nearly every human being I knew before August 2000.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
Or in the alternative
You’re right, the investigation tipped off the rumors, not the conduct.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
That's the point
I was trying to make. Like when the cop cars descended on John Wayne Gacy’s house: The neighbors figure something is going on, but until then he was a great guy who dressed up as a clown for the kids.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
No, I don't
wonder; I can tell you are not interested in providing substance when you can continue to try to blow smoke up people’s backsides.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Generally because it won't support your points
Kyle_Martin - January 16, 2012
Careful, you might not be able to dig yourself out of that "hole"
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
I've tied a rope around my waste and
am wearing a hazmat suit.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Like you said, he doesn't place a date.
I do remember some rumors coming out after the GJ investigation (there were rumors about the incident in the school weight room in 2008). I certainly don’t believe there were any before 2002.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
Never heard any myself.
I was at school from 98-01 and heard nary a whisper. I can still remember a blurb in the paper about a frat house and a goat, but nothing so scandalous Sandusky and kids. The big PR campaign was that he was retiring to pursue his work with the Second Mile, nothing more.
smh244 - January 16, 2012
In a way, this is true.
It was a very commonly held opinion in 1998 that the defenses were not playing up to standard because Jerry Sandusky was focusing too much of his energy on the Second Mile.
That was a very common belief. I even held it.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
and there is a big difference
between Sandusky hangs around kids and founded a kids charity, and Sandusky is a pedophile
Cari Greene - January 16, 2012
A very big difference.
But you think that it is impossible that ESPN might spin what I wrote into “Penn State fired it’s pedophile coach for not paying enough attention to recruiting trips”? I mean I hope sports by brooks at least credits me with the story.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
Hence Joe and JS parting ways.
This supports Joe’s contention that rumors or even the 1998 investigation (IF Joe even knew about that) had nothing to do with JS leaving.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
That's not how I remember it.
Beach was on the team, he said he’d never heard anything about it. I was a junior (at PSU), and I had not heard anything about, despite the fact my Father and Mother were dialed in with several coaches in other sports in the Athletic Department, and that me and my older brothers were all running around that town in different social circles, all having known at least one of Sandusky’s kids.
If this was in the water in 1998 I find it hard to believe that JFB didn’t hear something at the Adam’s Apple, or my brother did’s the Big Easy. Not for nothing, I’ve gotten leaks directly out of Amendola’s office before (not relative to this case though, and not for awhile)
There might have been rumors about Sandusky, but none that came across my radar in 1998 or 1999. But that’s not really determinative.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
I was at Penn State
in 1998, never did I hear of anything with Sandusky until spring 2011.
pmm156 - January 16, 2012
At PSU from 1997 to 2001
and never heard anything. It was something somebody made up that the most vile of people keep perpetuating.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
Nope, that's hype.
I never heard about it and I would have.
87Townie - January 16, 2012
But M1EK
thinks he may heard something from somebody some time that may have alluded to a rumor about stories of possibly things about JS.
How can you refute that?
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
I'm as credible as his source, right?
Besides, I find M1EK’s trolling fun. His motto: occasionally wrong but never in doubt.
87Townie - January 16, 2012
You are, 87,
because we are all what we think we are.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Remember
“It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
kijana's acl - January 16, 2012
Or if you can repeat it
often enough so others do. That seems to be what some want to do.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
see: LaVar's post today
he says NO ONE had any inkling that something like this was happening, and figured if someone did (coaches or players) it would have spread like wildfire.
Cari Greene - January 16, 2012
I don’t think you need to think he’s the most powerful man in the state.
If you were investigating a suspect, wouldn’t you interview his coworkers, especially if you knew that the suspect routinely brought children to work?
1LisHell - January 16, 2012
Admittedly, I don't work in law enforcement
But I would imagine they would need strong evidence that a crime occurred first. It’s very hard to interview coworkers about abuse without putting the claims out there. Generally, in cases with child abuse they attempt to be discrete. I could be wrong, but it would surprise me.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
When I reported abuse, only myself, my supervisor and another employee who reported abuse
were interviewed in the initial investigation of the suspected abuser.
I also am under the assumption that were investigating a single occurrence of Jerry showering inappropriately with a child in the football facility, clearly after hours. I would call this “bringing children to work”
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
meant to say " I would not call this "bringing children to work"
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
Folks, let's keep in mind
that JS founded Second Mile, which at the time was a very well-respected program to help disadvantaged children. Further, he and his wife had adopted — what? — six kids. This is not someone who just showed up with random kids — this was an individual whose life’s work supposedly involved helping kids.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
You don't start on the assumption that the person is a serial criminal.
You start with the allegations you are presented with. If there is nothing to substantiate those allegations, there is no reason to dive into a deeper investigation.
The 1998 allegations did not involve anyone from the football program. They involved an event that took place on Penn State, but that does not necessarily mean the football program is involved.
Succss With Honor Always - January 16, 2012
Paterno thinks he should have done more, but what does that mean?
The quote is “wishes” I believe. You know, if you want to be accurate.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
actually, the quote is
“With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”
If you want to be accurate ;)
Cari Greene - January 16, 2012
Thank you.
This quote is really the only semantic argument I even bother with because I think it does matter.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
Is there any proof that certain BoT members used Sandusky to get rid of Paterno?
First I’ve heard of the possibility. I find it very implausible.
Mr. Rosewater - January 16, 2012
Wasn't it Surma who went with Spanier
To Joe’s house the summer of ’04 and asked him to leave? I am really asking, but I thought I read that there was atleast 1 BoT member at that meeting.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
I thought it was just Spanier
Mr. Rosewater - January 16, 2012
Curley was there, for a fact
But I swore he was there also, Surma I mean.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
Even if we suspect it's Surma, it's a pretty crappy way to get rid of the coach
And even if it was done that way, it wouldn’t have made sense unless those int he BoT HATED Joe Pa. Because not only did you get him fired, but you burned the university’s reputation.
That’s why I find it implausible.
Mr. Rosewater - January 16, 2012
Oh I agree it is a crappy way to do it
I don’t know what the BoT’s power even is anymore, meaning who runs what there. We probably will never know that either. But if there was a BoT member at that meeting, it would give some credence to the idea that they wanted him to leave.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
If it was Surma or anyone else at the BoT
they should be burned at the stake.
Mr. Rosewater - January 16, 2012
Yeah
Atleast be asked to answer questions about it, in a public forum. Where we can watch them squirm for once, and not allowed to just give some waterdown PC answer.
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
It was November of 04, after we had gone 4-7.
Based on what I remember, it was Spanier, Curley, and some members of the BoT. It was never reported who those board members were.
Ab4PSU - January 16, 2012
I remember thinking that exact thought when I heard Joe was fired.
This was pure retribution…I think Joe’s offer to retire actually pissed them off more. Something like, “he’s not going to tell US what HE’s going to do again!” And so they fired him…because they could. It was something that they could DO…otherwise all they could do is wait for the jury and who the hell wants to wait that long?
87Townie - January 16, 2012
The minute Joe was fired I knew it was personal with the board and had nothing to actually do with Sandusky.
Ab4PSU - January 16, 2012
From another thread
I wish I had the right attribution, but someone in another thread who attended the Lubrano “after party” in Philly last week alluded to friction between Joe and Surma. Lubrano apparently said that Joe notified Spanier and others he was retiring at the end of the season and provided 3-4 names he thought would be good replacements; Surma supposedly was pissed that Joe thought he could tell him what to do.
Is that enough of a gripe to see this as a situation upon which to push your own personal agenda? I hope not, but people have probably done worse for less in the past.
kflintosh - January 16, 2012 via iPhone app
Spanier, Curley, Garban and possibly Bill Schreyer
OmarLittle - January 16, 2012
I told people after the Pittsburgh Town Hall...
Listening closely to Erickson’s answers, I believe he admitted as much.
psume06 - January 16, 2012 via mobile
That they wanted Joe gone? Or that they were using Sandusky to get rid of Joe?
Mr. Rosewater - January 16, 2012
I think he was refering to the latter
This was the excuse to finally get rid of Joe
AriesGD - January 16, 2012
People that age just don't understand all the sexual "deviancy" that is so freely talked about these days.
I know deviancy has a negative connotation, I just meant “anything that isn’t a grown man and grown woman”. Child sexual abuse was never talked about, ever, until the Catholic Church scandal, and that was pretty recent.
My father came out of the closet about five years ago, and it took his parents (a few years younger than JoePa) months to even confront him about it. When they did, they asked him why he couldn’t just not be that way. They just didn’t understand what was going on at all. From personal experience, I can absolutely buy that Joe had no idea what McQueary was really referring to.
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
Gradulations to your father for his courage
jtothep - January 16, 2012
They grew up in a different world.
My very catholic grandmother is the same age as JoePa, and still refers to my aunt’s girlfriend of 20 years as her roommate or friend. I remember a conversation with her about 10-12 years ago about sex—she honestly thought that oral sex was when you talked about it, that a boner was a mistake and that sex was a wife’s duty. She and Joe were raised in a different time really a different world…and I can’t help think of how my grandmother would have reacted if someone told her the things that MM told Joe. So I find it possible that Joe didn’t fully grasp the severity of what MM was telling him…and if he truely did not know about the 1998 investigation, never heard anything else about Sandusky or the graphic details of what MM saw until the GJ investigation…then I can sort of see why he thought at the time that turning it over to Curley was enough.
Jeannine Pinaula - January 16, 2012
I also find it possible that MM didn’t fully verbalize anything out of the possibility that Joe wouldn’t understand…
blackjackfishtaco - January 16, 2012
We'll never know if that's his story or what the PR/Attorney told him he needs to say...
And I’m rapidly losing faith that the internal investigation is going to yield any significant new information either. All we’ll get from the legal proceedings against Sandusky is what the prosecution chooses to pursue, with their eye on getting the highest probability of conviction, not on finding truth. Any settlements in civil suits will have to be viewed as potential “punts” on the legal fees vs. just paying out and moving forward.
Unless someone finds some truth serum, all the major players have too much to lose for us to hear anything with any sort of candor. The PSU side of this story will end as it started; in a pile of horseshit, with intent indistinguishable from allegations.
I will say that I’m disappointed in Joe and his responses in this article. He’s not superman, but he’s not everyman, either. For him to try to sell us on him being an old man unfamiliar with the threats of the modern era (and kids got raped in all eras, folks. That’s nothing new. It’s been a scourge of humanity forever) is embarrassing. He’s a very successful leader of men and a teacher who embraced helping troubled young men and turning them around. He’s dancing around knowing or not knowing or not understanding that MM saw “something sexual” happening in the shower. It’s not the language you expect from the JoePa we have come to view as a moral compass.
I think it’s legalese at this point, which is really sad.
SkellerDweller06 - January 16, 2012
I learned some very interesting information over the weekend.
I learned that if you are an employee at any school or university in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and you did not actually witness the sexual abuse of a child but you go to the police yourself, you can be arrested and thrown in jail for 3-5 years. According to the law, you are to go to your superior. Joe did, which in this case was Tim Curley. To have gone outside the chain of command could have legally put Joe in trouble.
As far as the interview goes, Joe said he never heard of a man raping a man. Let’s be real here. He may not have. Had my grandmother lived, she would be 85 right now. The same age as Joe. While talking with my mom about growing up and family history, etc., my mother told me that when she hit puberty my grandmother did not discuss it with her, or show her the things a young woman needed to do to handle such things. So Joe could be telling the truth here. Let’s face it, my grandmother’s and Joe’s generation didn’t discuss these kinds of things, and did not have such liberal access to pornogrophy to make them knowledgeable about such things. And I also read an article in Time last spring about men raping men. It happens in the military and other places to show power. That was the first I had ever heard of that concept. So, if I, growing up in this generation where sex is so pervasive, didn’t know how common man-on-man rape was, how was Joe to know?
And lastly, everybody wants to harp on Joe’s saying “With the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more.” Most people muddle through life and are never faced with that single moment, and single instant in time where the course of somebody’s life is going to be altered forever. The people that mostly come to mind are policemen, firefighters, EMTs, military personal, etc. Ocassionally other people from different walks of life encounter this. I’m a locomotive engineer. This May will make 4 years since a young man used my locomotives as a method of committing suicide. Logic tells me that two engines going 47 miles an hour were not going to stop in 1,500 feet to avoid hitting somebody that was sprinting right at me. Co-workers called me to tell me not to feel guilty; there was nothing I could do. That’s logic. But for a while a part of me wondered “What if?” So when you think about the life altering moment that these victims endured, I’m sure Joe wonders what he could have done. That is not an admission of guilt and wrongdoing and people need to let that the fuck alone.
Ab4PSU - January 16, 2012
This is a load of crap:
Not true at all. Try again.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Are you a lawyer?
My cousin’s wife works with children and also seconded that when I learned that. So are actually speaking as a lawyer with credible knowledge or are you being your usual combative self again?
Ab4PSU - January 16, 2012
It's been debunked here
time and time again by actual lawyers. It’s something somebody started telling people to try to make them feel better, but it’s not true.
The police commissioner said, in a press conference, that he wanted people to call the police. You trust a friend of a friend who isn’t a lawyer over that?
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Unfortunately, I can't find the website again
But there was that lawyer who wrote a commentary about chain of command reporting in PA. She had a fair amount of experience, but I don’t think it was actually in PA. I am interested in hearing the facts either way as I don’t know what the law requires in PA.
psualum9931 - January 16, 2012
It was debunked here
by BSD Wentworth. On several occasions.
The law doesn’t REQUIRE certain people to report to the police, but neither does it forbid them from doing so.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
While I can't speak for the law exactly in PA, because I worked with children
more recently in Maryland and Massachusetts, many youth organizations have policies set in place to follow a chain of command of reporting. If you witness a crime in progress, you are more than able to step in, immediately get your supervisor, etc. However, we were always required to report directly to our superiors who would then direct us to someone in our organization who handled child abuse reporting, and they would directly get the police or more often, CPS involved.
I had to report abuse before, and I completely disagree with that particular police commissioner who used a moment in the spotlight to morally grandstand, when according to many people, isn’t the nicest person.
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
Also, I am currently a Big Sister
and in BB/BS the policy if the mentor observes abuse is to tell no one about the social worker who monitors the Big/Little match and they take down a statement and handle it internally/externally as they see fit.
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
That's a policy
Policies must be consistent with the law, but they are not the law. There are a hundred reasons for a rule like that.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
Agreed. That's why I can't say I speak for the law
just policies I followed in over 5 organizations I worked for. I wasn’t comfortable going to police with a report of abuse I saw, because it shocked me and I didn’t really understand the law, procedure of what to do next. My report had an actual effect and put someone behind bars, so clearly had a positive outcome than this.
I can understand why such policies are in place and why someone who is not well versed in the law and knowledge of child sexual abuse (someone like Joe in this case) should not be vilified for trusting those who should be much more aware of the laws/nuances who did nothing. A error of judgement now, yes, but I can’t crucify him for that.
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
I've worked with children in MA
and at the training, they state law is now that everybody is a mandatory reporter. However, they acknowledged that the lack of education on the subject of child welfare is so inadequate that it was unlikely a person would be prosecuted for failure to report if they had not been through a training session (i.e. teachers, counselors…).
psualum9931 - January 16, 2012
Yeah, that's what I was told here also, I know it greatly varies so I can speak for all of them.
Which is why as a “volunteer” mentor in MA, with no formal training needed, they direct you to someone with actually training (the social worker) so it’s handled correctly and reported. I would assume as a safeguard to the BB/BS organization to ensure that it’s handled properly.
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
Show us the statute.
1LisHell - January 16, 2012
Slow down
Not going to say he’s wrong right away, but I am curious where you saw/read/heard that.
kflintosh - January 16, 2012 via iPhone app
I asked my mom about this
She works with kids in PA and goes through yearly training on how to handle abuse. She told me that employees who have suspicions of abuse are required to report it to EITHER a supervisor, or the police within a certain amount of time (I think she said 48 hours). Mose companies have policies on their own for how specifically to proceed. This is to ensure that cases are handled properly by people specifically trained to do so. There is no law preventing a person from breaking company policy if they feel the need to.
She did say that unless a child as in imminent danger, she would have done the same thing and followed company policy.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
If that's the law
Why hasn’t Joe’s attorney had that in bold print since day one??? If you had this “easy out” to defend what is being alleged as a lack of action, you’d shout it from the mountain top.
Sorry, that’s clearly not real. I wish it was, though.
SkellerDweller06 - January 16, 2012
In answer to your question
I think it’s less about positions and camps and entrenchments or any changing of opinions there about than it is about what the Internet has always been: storytelling and characterizations. ‘Reading between the lines,’ as Dudley has in characterizing JoePa’s actions as cowardly and perniciously protecting the cash cow remains fair game. As does assailing that angle as preposterously sinister when weighed against the entire Joe Paterno track record.
The whole saga remains complex, even though our collective understanding of it is likely approaching 85-90%, as jessedot notes. The only thing that’s left in the looking back is for us to try to be as honest with ourselves as possible about the stories we’re being told.
And in the looking forward, we’re all left to try to prepare and to wonder how we might behave should we ever encounter any situations remotely similar to any of those we’ve learned about in this ordeal.
jtothep - January 16, 2012
I think McQ learned
Years later, he helped subdue a football player with a knife.
What I have learned — don’t worry about the chain of command, if you see something act on it and/or get the cops involved.
WFY - January 16, 2012
I wish I saw more people thinking like that about the future.
Mostly I just see a lot of sad little people trying to make themselves feel better.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
I swayed somewhat
It sounds like Joe backed away from the situation due do a combination of being uncomfortable with the subject, and not qualified to handle it. While I can understand his reasoning, I am a bit disappointed that he didn’t go farther into getting an explanation from Curley or Schultz.
I think he had a lapse of judgement. It’s unfortunate that if Schultz had done his job, this wouldn’t be an issue. But still, I think most of us would expect that Joe would have been a little more involved.
In the end, while I am a bit disappointed, it hardly diminishes everything else he did in his life. I think Jesse. put it perfectly in the Washington Post thread.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
This is how
I would have been able to view him if he would have resigned when the presentment came out.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
See, I don't really see this as something that would have required him resigning
I don’t think he did anything wrong, so much as I just would have expected him to have done more. He followed university procedure and expected other people to do their jobs. Sadly, it seems like they didn’t. I’m sure you disagree, and that’s fine. But I have a hard time putting too much blame on someone who trusted their superiors.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
I'm curious
What specific justification is there for him to resign when the presentment was released?
I understand why so many others would want him to resign then.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
To take responsibility for sins of omission
and try to focus people on what was important.
CEOs resign (even in our stupid American version of business) over things they should have done but didn’t all the time.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Interesting
Perhaps Joe correctly assumed this was a university problem, not a football problem, and so didn’t agree with the characterization that he’s the CEO.
Also, I would ask Gary Schultz and Tim Curly (or their attorneys) if word “omission” seems appropriate, given their current legal predicaments.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
He's not the CEO
He is the most famous employee. Paterno is the Malcom X to Spanier’s Elijah Muhammad.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
For all intents and purposes
Paterno was the CEO of PSU Football Inc. Despite all this nonsense about superiors, we all know this to be true.
Doesn’t mean the board can’t meet and fire you (this is actually a pretty good analogue, come to think of it) – but you have no real superior.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
CEO of PSU Football Inc
So not the CEO of the entire PSU administration? Meaning the people that Jerry would have reported to as a retired coach? I agree with you on the sentiment, yes.
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
No we don’t. I in fact have seen a flow chart that properly subordinated the football team to an athletic director, and an athletic director to a university president. It’s set up this way specifically to maintain institutional control over the football program.
The sick irony of this is that the system was designed to prevent a football coach from covering this shit up, not to do it for him.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
Paterno was the CEO of PSU Football Inc
Read it again. I did not say “CEO of PSU”.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
PSU Football, Inc.:
a wholly-owned subsidiary of PSU, Inc., and therefore bound by the rules, regulations, and policies of the parent company.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
And CEO of PSU football falls underneath the entire PSU admin.
You ignored the entire point of Jesse.’s post.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
Right
But to fire the CEO of PSU football is to limit this to a football problem (which it was, in part) and not a larger University/Administration problem (which it was, in total).
kijana's acl - January 16, 2012
I prefer...
to view it as PSU Football, LLC. Pass through tax treatment is so much more advantageous.
Esteban d' Amur - January 16, 2012
Yeah but 53,000,000
On your personal return? Eff that noise. They should reincorporate in the United Arab Emerites.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
yeah...
but then you have to get the money off-shore, which, considering I do that every day, isn’t that easy to do with out the US taking an even bigger chunk of money. you have to worry about us owners of foreign companies.
Esteban d' Amur - January 16, 2012
Then you just buy diamonds with the money.
Or Casino chips.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
Yes...
laundering money through casino chips is one way to do it.
Esteban d' Amur - January 16, 2012
Enron.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
those guys did..
some creative things….
Esteban d' Amur - January 16, 2012
I have a
grudging admiration for Enron, whereas with WorldCom, it was a crime that was stupidly executed. I worked for MCI for seven years, but left nine months after the “merger”. Bernie and Scott were arrogantly stupid.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Well it Penn State's emeritus professor that is accused of the crime.
Not any member of PSU Football, Inc.
jesse. - January 16, 2012
He's still underneath most of the PSU administration
Joe may have had a lot of influence, but he had no direct power outside of the football team. If Schultz, Curley or Spanier decided they didn’t want to listen to Joe, he had no more power to make them than you or I.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
So the only reason you posted this crap
was to try and see if you could get somebody to tell your troll friend he won, isn’t it?
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
Joe's interview
will not sway anyone from their previously held opinions of him and this situation. The haters will continue to hate (multiple exhibits in the OP and in the responses), and others will hold to their beliefs. As someone who is much closer to the apologists than the haters, I can understand and accept most of Joe’s statements.
One thing that seems to be overlooked here is Joe saying he followed up with Big Red. I know many of you will refuse to consider that point as exculpatory, but it makes sense to me: Joe did not witness anything, Big Red admits to giving Joe a very muted version of events that disturbed Joe, and so Joe followed up with the guy who supposedly had the most knowledge. If Big Red, who apparently continued to hang out at times with Sandusky (participating in Second Mile events, for example), appeared not to be aggressively pursuing the issue, why should Joe? Paterno may have continued to be concerned, hence the follow-up, but what was he to do if MM didn’t appear to be overly alarmed? Add in the very real possibility that Schultz and Curley told Joe, “Nothing to see, Coach; we counseled Sandusky, and he promised to avoid improprieties in the future.” and I don’t see that Paterno was in a position to even pick up a phone and dial 9-1-1.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
If I followed up with the guy who made the allegations
and he didn’t say he was angered by the lack of action, I would not have pressed further.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
Thanks, 6244 --
much more succinct than my rambling.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
People don't get McQueary
Assuming Joe followed up with him later, he was a GA scared he would lose his job and never get another one. What do you think he was going to do at that point when it was clear the machinery of the bureaucracy wasn’t going to take it seriously?
It was incumbent on Joe to probe at that point and say “son, explain to me exactly what you saw – and don’t be afraid to shock me or embarass me. This is really important and we need to make sure everybody knows.”
It is difficult to reconcile the claim that he said he was OK with what happened with how he has presented things from 2008 to now, though. So I reserve judgement on whether that really happened.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Wow, so many assumptions
in there.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Yes.
The first word of my comment is “Assuming”. What’s your point? Most of you assumed Joe followed up, and now we know he didn’t.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Wrong.
Many of us have adopted a “wait-and-see” approach, while you have been gathering firewood, gasoline, and matches to set Paterno et al. on fire.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
And you're also wrong that he didn't follow up
Kyle_Martin - January 16, 2012
Exactly.
And he will never admit it, just like he still refuses to admit to any other factual errors.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
Mike testafied nobody every told him not to speak about it
or gave other restrictions on him. Sounds like the admins were being very evil towards him. People are so freaking stupid it is painful.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
Time to put on the tinfoil hat
It’s equally possible that the explanation Schultz gave him made him comfortable with the results. In which case, Paterno (after talking to him) wouldn’t have seen any reason to press the issue further.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
Also true.
Seriously, this is possibly true. Not very likely, but possible.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
I don't think it's any less likely than your story.
MM had no problem speaking about the issue, very directly, during the GJ investigation and afterward. I’m not sure why he would have been so terrified in 2002, then suddenly put himself out there to be crucified now.
I’m going to assume Schultz told MM something that made him comfortable with the results. Keep in mind, that if he did, MM (and Joe) would most likely be told to keep this quiet until the perjury trial.
It’s possible this didn’t happen too, but I don’t see why it’s so unlikely.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
Because, OMG, Mike was much
more afraid of losing his GA job than he was of losing his more-senior level position ten years later . . .
Sophistry at its best.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Someone please explain this to me.
How does protecting a former PSU coach help protect the “cash cow of PSU Football”? What part of hiding this would have made sense to the leaders in power?
I just don’t understand how people can think that Joe Pa said to himself, “We can’t have this leak now, it will mess up our dynasty! A few years down the road makes way more sense. THEN, and only then, there’s a good chance that it will just blow over…”
OMEGAMAN - January 16, 2012
They need an evil motive
To fit their narrative. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
^ This
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Exactly.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
...If people truly think there was some large conspiracy theory...
It is the worst ever. Because it makes no sense to say covering up child abuse will benefit PSU in the long run.
OMEGAMAN - January 16, 2012
The theory
That Joe tried to cover this up by not going to the police to protect a cash cow or to somehow shield his football program from uncomfortable scrutiny has more holes in it than a cheese grater. Yet, it’s easy for that narrative to stick because it fits the lazy stereotype of a powerful football coach at a large university. (It also serves as a vessel to carry the HYPOCRITE corpse around that the media love to continue to beat.)
Most of us here know that’s not what Joe Paterno was about or how he ran the football program, which makes the bleating by the national media and anyone else can’t be bothered to learn the facts on the ground so hard to take.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
Most people here
even those you disagree with, like me, don’t think Paterno was part of an active cover-up, but rather, that he, in his own words, didn’t do enough.
M1EK - January 16, 2012
Another misquote.
Wow, do you EVER let reality intrude?
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
I agree with M1EK that Joe didn't do enough.
Where I disagree with him is that I don’t he should be faulted for his decision, based on what information he had and his lack of experience with the subject at the time..
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
don't think*
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
Really?
THIS is where you’re going to try to hang your hat? It’s an eminently reasonable paraphrase. Note I didn’t use quotation marks. I apologize for confusing you with “in his own words”. What I meant was “he has told us he doesn’t think he did enough”. Good enough?
M1EK - January 16, 2012
"With the benefit of hindsight,
I wish I had done more."
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Only people who misquote that
are the ones trying to make JoePa look bad. They are very transparent.
FB6244 - January 16, 2012
^ Truf
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Not getting sucked into an argument
But please know that the media and others who are…er, less initiated…most certainly do think this was a cover-up, even if it was of the “benign neglect” variety.
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
Because it's what they would probably do.
You project your own shortcomings onto other people. If you lie all the time, then you likely believe people are mostly disingenuous. If you cheat on your partner, it’s much easier to believe that they’re also cheating on you.
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
That's because it's so common.
O$U’s scandal was all about protecting their best players by hiding evidence. UNC is going to get hammered too. That’s the culture of college sports today. Everyone knows it happens at Penn State too…now their suspicions are confirmed.(that’s sarcasm folks).
That’s why I will vigorously defend Joe. That’s why the legality of his actions is so important. He followed the rules. He didn’t cover anything up. In fact, he brought a rumor to light.
Any boy scouts out there want to discuss the BSA policy on this kind of rumor? In my brief experience working for the scouts, if you were accused, you were simply kicked out. No police, no black marks, you were just asked to leave.
That’s why I find this all so hypocritical.
87Townie - January 16, 2012
what makes that reasoning even less plausible is when you consider the amount of money involved
Even if it reduced the football programs revenue by $30million, which is considerable, it still would have been a profitable expenditure. Plus, the amount of revenue generated by the football program is small compared to the total revenues of the university. PSU’s budget is in the billions, the GDP of a small country.
psualum9931 - January 16, 2012
Because it makes people more comortable.
It’s much more comforting that it was all a big evil cover up than the truth: that this was all caused by a bureaucratic oversight. People don’t want to believe that something like this could happen anywhere.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
Completely agree with your last sentence.
People are completely disillusioned that this can and does happen anywhere.
mleepsu08 - January 16, 2012
This is not the BSD I've known and loved
I’m tapping out of this conversation
pmm156 - January 16, 2012
+1
me too
Looking forward to the spring game and complaining about our QB’s again.
millzners - January 16, 2012
Let's all just
disagree to disargee
Dr.TobiasFunke - January 16, 2012
Lol
Never has a post that involved M1EK’s comments been so succinctly summarized.
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
Very Solomonic, Dr.,
but WAY too late. LOL!
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Just my Senior Citizen view
1.Let me start by saying that I am a Paterno supporter. Let me also say that I have never believed he did enough. I find it hard to imagine that he, upon seeing JS after MM’s complaint, would not at a minimum, call Curley to find out how the issue was handled. That being said, I also can believe that for reasons of age, demands of the job and background Paterno did not spend any time on porn websites. He very possibly did not fully understand MM’s vague explanation of what MAY have transpired in the shower.
2.Picture you are the CEO of this $54M enterprise and someone comes into your office to complain about an EX-employee who is legally using the companies facilities. What would you say/do? Your ship is taking on water, remember is it the middle of the dark years (2002). I turn it over to someone in authority, tell the person complaining to go see him and then I get back to work fixing my $54M enterprise that is in crisis.
3.My first boss told me when dealing with customer complaints about our employees to remember one thing: "There are 2 sides to every story. Somewhere in the middle is the truth". Unfortunately, in the scandal, all of us are going to land at different points in the middle. We will never know the whole truth!
bluebellgolfer - January 16, 2012
Very good points, BBG.
Re your point 3: Many of us feel compelled to defend Joe, not as a saint or a football coach, but as a man involved in a situation for which he had no point of reference. That is why all these electrons are being traded — we cannot countenance the blackening of an individual’s reputation by those who would act as judge, jury, and executioner of that reputation.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
How many more...
of these threads do we have to go through?
Esteban d' Amur - January 16, 2012
How many grains upon the sands?
How many hairs upon your head?
How many slack-jawed opportunists with a computer and a half-baked opinion with an editor looking for boffo web page views in the media?
Jitterbug - January 16, 2012
Infinity
plus one.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
Assuming a noon kickoff for Ohio, there are
228 DAYS 21 HOURS 14 MINUTES 31 SECONDS UNTIL KICKOFF!!!
Further assuming we go through one of these threads about every 3 days, we must go through approximately 76 more of these threads.
Ab4PSU - January 16, 2012
It's going to happen until it's not relevant.
dbl5030 - January 16, 2012
It did change my opinion
I have been firmly in the wait and see camp, while at the same time working off the assumption that Joe was a decent human being who would try to make the best decision he could. I knew that was an assumption but it was one I was comfortable using until evidence to the contrary came out (if there was any such evidence).
Well, I still think Joe is a decent human being that tried to make the best decision that he could. What has changed for me is the idea that Joe would always feel up to the task, no matter what the task was. Admittedly, I’ve let story of Joe cloud the reality. His statement that he felt inadequate paints a picture (at least for me) of a man who really did not know how to handle the situation that he was confronted with. I believe he honestly tried to hand it off to someone that would know the right thing to do because he thought that was the best course of action.
Is that a naive view? Am I still letting my preconceived and admittedly unrealistic ideas about Joe Paterno get in the way of cold, hard reality? Maybe. I don’t think so. I ultimately feel sympathetic towards Joe. I know what it feels like to feel inadequate, and it isn’t enjoyable. I feel bad for him because I think he believes he did what he thought was right, and it didn’t help (in fact it turned out to be the wrong decision, and yes, I do think it was the wrong decision). I wouldn’t go so far as to call Joe a victim, and he isn’t blameless. But I do think it is tragic, and I think I have settled on the decision that he did fulfill his moral obligation because he did try to do the right thing, as he understood it. Maybe he didn’t fulfill it 100%, but I can accept that a man can be better than a devil without having to be a god.
Nittany_Ryan - January 16, 2012
Awesome post, Ryan,
esp. your last sentence. None of us are without flaws or failings; the question is, Do our successes outweigh our failures? In my view of Joe, my answer is “YEs, most definitely.”
PSU_Lions_84 - January 16, 2012
well said
and I agree
I also think the “never heard of man rape” quote is being overblown a bit. Of course Joe had to know that “man rape” was possible, I think he meant that he had never dealt with it before, or even the possibility of dealing with that concept was extremely bizarre, foreign, and impossible to imagine for him. But, that’s putting words in Joe’s mouth, and I can’t do that. I’m just speculating.
hbeach08 - January 16, 2012
Keep in mind, that Jenkins herself stated that at times Joe wasn't very lucid
She said at times he tended to trail off his answers and some answers were completely unintelligible. She says she tried her best to include everything she could, but left out the answers that didn’t make sense. It’s very possible that Joe may not have phrased what he wanted to say in the best way.
ppfcpp - January 16, 2012
He could have meant “rape and a boy” and out of his weakened state (or out of disgust) chose to say “rape and a man.” Or something. But like you said, the man is not feeling too well lately
OmarLittle - January 16, 2012
Well this has reached its usefulness.
Done.
Jeff Junstrom - January 16, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Black Shoe Diaries to post a comment.