New UNC player revelations

[Lynwood Rowe]

I would be SHOCKED if UNC gets a harsher penalty than what UCONN received for missing a silly APR metric (1 year postseason ban, loss of scholarship, eased transfer rules for kids who want out). Not because what I think is going on/went on at UNC isn't absolutely disturbing. But because I have no idea just how much authority the NCAA holds over its member institutions any more. Time and time and time again we have seen the NCAA take the fetal position. I expect this (and Syracuse, FSU, whoever else) to be no different.

Very reasonable. But UNC students have / had an expectation their degree carried a certain cache' upon graduation. Someone didn't live up to their end of the agreement for I think there is a little less luster on that sheepskin today. Is this institutional dereliction actionable?

 

[upstater]

Sorry, but I felt Sandusky used his access and previous position to gain access. I believe Paterno knew about the shower incident and decided to keep a cover on it. You can write a 10 page response but I see it differently.

It depend son what you mean by cover. The first incident was reported to police and child services. The second incident was reported to campus police and administrators including the president. But they did nothing about it. Paterno followed up but learned nothing was being done. He then did nothing. That by definition could be called a cover-up.

And yet, the same thing goes on everywhere including at Michigan and UConn and Syracuse and I'm sure many other places. It's how these places work: CYA is the mantra of administraotrs. Don't tell me what I don't need to know. The buck stops with you.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/15/uconn-professor-accused-child-abuse-retires-with-6g-pension/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/15/nation/la-na-nn-penn-state-michigan-sex-allegations-20120715

If you listened carefully to Paterno and the Freeh report, you'd know that this is how things operated at PSU as well. Paterno said that he knew that something bad had happened because of how distraught the assistant coach who reported it was. But he wasn't told explicitly, which jibes with the court testimony. It also jibes with the testimony from a doctor that was told the same thing later that day (after the coach met with Paterno). The doctor was a friend of the coach's family, and he says the guy was not explicit about what had happened. Probably because he was afraid for his job. We know this is how things work. You put yourself on the line with your superiors when you're a whistleblower.

 

[HoopsFan21]

It depend son what you mean by cover. The first incident was reported to police and child services. The second incident was reported to campus police and administrators including the president. But they did nothing about it. Paterno followed up but learned nothing was being done. He then did nothing. That by definition could be called a cover-up.

And yet, the same thing goes on everywhere including at Michigan and UConn and Syracuse and I'm sure many other places. It's how these places work: CYA is the mantra of administraotrs. Don't tell me what I don't need to know. The buck stops with you.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/15/uconn-professor-accused-child-abuse-retires-with-6g-pension/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ju...enn-state-michigan-s e x-allegations-20120715

If you listened carefully to Paterno and the Freeh report, you'd know that this is how things operated at PSU as well. Paterno said that he knew that something bad had happened because of how distraught the assistant coach who reported it was. But he wasn't told explicitly, which jibes with the court testimony. It also jibes with the testimony from a doctor that was told the same thing later that day (after the coach met with Paterno). The doctor was a friend of the coach's family, and he says the guy was not explicit about what had happened. Probably because he was afraid for his job. We know this is how things work. You put yourself on the line with your superiors when you're a whistleblower.

Your account of what happened at PSU is not quite right. The shower/McQueary incident occurred on a Friday night. He went home to his Dad and doctor friend. That's when they asked him, I believe three times, if he witness Sandusky having sexual relations with the kid in the shower to which said 'no'. The next morning he told Paterno. You are correct that he didn't describe a rape out of respect for the old man, but he described it as something sexual. Paterno then looks up in the university handbook what he is supposed to do about such a report which apparently says to notify your supervisor, in this case the athletic director. McQueary then meets with the athletic director and the VP of finance who also happened to be the top administrator for the police department. These two guys both steadfastly claim McQueary described horseplay or goofing around in the shower. A few weeks later Paterno asks McQueary if he was OK with how everything turned out to which he replied he was satisfied.

At this point, in Paterno's mind, the incident is a closed matter. He reported the incident, which he received second hand mind you, up the chain of command to people that would be better equipped to handle an investigation as University policy required, and the person that initially reported it to him said he was fine with how it was being dealt with. I have to ask myself, WTF else was he supposed to do? For all he knew McQueary misinterpreted splashing in the shower for something sexual, because we know he never actually saw anything, and it was being taken care of by those in charge of the school. Furthermore McQueary out golfing with Sandusky multiple times after the shower incident and being buddy buddy enough to consult with him about recruits lends credence that McQueary himself knows he was mistaken, unless he's cool with rubbing elbows with someone he knew to be a child rapist. Even if there was a cover up, how would Paterno know it and why would he suspect it of people in charge at the school that he had known for years? It's not as if he saw Sandusky raping a kid and then realized those above him were sweeping it under the rug. If anything he would have thought there was no merit to McQueary's claim. He received a vague report and passed it along. A report that he could not possibly know whether it was true or not. He's a football coach, not some superhero with extrasensory perception. The president of the school was only ever peripherally involved, so it's a bit of a stretch to try to pin anything on him.

There was also no testimony from the victim, so the whole case hinged on McQueary's changing story and "slapping sounds in the shower" vs. Sandusky's word, and no jury is going to ever completely acquit a person they had been told for six months was a pedophile (hence the reason leaking grand jury details ahead of a trial is a crime). The only way to make this huge cover up and conspiracy work in the face of what McQueary told people at the time and the overwhelming evidence of his behavior afterwards is to yank on your tin foil hat as tight as you can because you really have to weave a complicated tale to make it all work the way it was initially sold to all of us.

Having researched a fair amount on my own, I myself prefer the simpler and more likely explanation. What the NCAA did worries me that they could do it to my alma matre at some point in the future, because apparently you only need to be sufficiently embarrassed to enter into something like the consent decree that PSU was forced into signing. Today that threshold is set at an ex-coach inappropriately touching a kid in the shower, tomorrow it's __________.

 

[itgoeslike]

Your account of what happened at PSU is not quite right. The shower/McQueary incident occurred on a Friday night. He went home to his Dad and doctor friend. That's when they asked him, I believe three times, if he witness Sandusky having s e xual relations with the kid in the shower to which said 'no'. The next morning he told Paterno. You are correct that he didn't describe a rape out of respect for the old man, but he described it as something s e xual. Paterno then looks up in the university handbook what he is supposed to do about such a report which apparently says to notify your supervisor, in this case the athletic director. McQueary then meets with the athletic director and the VP of finance who also happened to be the top administrator for the police department. These two guys both steadfastly claim McQueary described horseplay or goofing around in the shower. A few weeks later Paterno asks McQueary if he was OK with how everything turned out to which he replied he was satisfied.

At this point, in Paterno's mind, the incident is a closed matter. He reported the incident, which he received second hand mind you, up the chain of command to people that would be better equipped to handle an investigation as University policy required, and the person that initially reported it to him said he was fine with how it was being dealt with. I have to ask myself, WTF else was he supposed to do? For all he knew McQueary misinterpreted splashing in the shower for something s e xual, because we know he never actually saw anything, and it was being taken care of by those in charge of the school. Furthermore McQueary out golfing with Sandusky multiple times after the shower incident and being buddy buddy enough to consult with him about recruits lends credence that McQueary himself knows he was mistaken, unless he's cool with rubbing elbows with someone he knew to be a child rapist. Even if there was a cover up, how would Paterno know it and why would he suspect it of people in charge at the school that he had known for years? It's not as if he saw Sandusky raping a kid and then realized those above him were sweeping it under the rug. If anything he would have thought there was no merit to McQueary's claim. He received a vague report and passed it along. A report that he could not possibly know whether it was true or not. He's a football coach, not some superhero with extrasensory perception. The president of the school was only ever peripherally involved, so it's a bit of a stretch to try to pin anything on him.

There was also no testimony from the victim, so the whole case hinged on McQueary's changing story and "slapping sounds in the shower" vs. Sandusky's word, and no jury is going to ever completely acquit a person they had been told for six months was a pedophile (hence the reason leaking grand jury details ahead of a trial is a crime). The only way to make this huge cover up and conspiracy work in the face of what McQueary told people at the time and the overwhelming evidence of his behavior afterwards is to yank on your tin foil hat as tight as you can because you really have to weave a complicated tale to make it all work the way it was initially sold to all of us.

Having researched a fair amount on my own, I myself prefer the simpler and more likely explanation. What the NCAA did worries me that they could do it to my alma matre at some point in the future, because apparently you only need to be sufficiently embarrassed to enter into something like the consent decree that PSU was forced into signing. Today that threshold is set at an ex-coach inappropriately touching a kid in the shower, tomorrow it's __________.

I don't disagree that PSU as an institution has suffered substantially through the action of a few. But, to give Sandusky a pass and suggest he was railroaded is ridiculous. What exactly did McQuery gain through reporting this incident? What about the custodian who reported similar activity? Additionally, as @upstater mentioned above, this wasn't Sandusky's first formally documented offense. In your previous post you said: In the end, Sandusky was acquitted of the rape charge, but was convicted on charges of indecent assault, child endangerment, and unlawful contact with a minor (your basic throw as many charges and see what sticks prosecution). Sandusky was convicted on 9 counts of involuntary deviant sexual intercourse. That doesn't sound benign. With regard to Paterno, I don't know what was going through his head. But, I can say with confidence, if I was in his position there is no way I am just forwarding the information and sitting on my hands. I suspect Paterno regretted actions that were inconsistent with how he built his program.

 

[upstater]

I don't disagree that PSU as an institution has suffered substantially through the action of a few. But, to give Sandusky a pass and suggest he was railroaded is ridiculous. What exactly did McQuery gain through reporting this incident? What about the custodian who reported similar activity? Additionally, as @upstater mentioned above, this wasn't Sandusky's first formally documented offense. In your previous post you said: In the end, Sandusky was acquitted of the rape charge, but was convicted on charges of indecent assault, child endangerment, and unlawful contact with a minor (your basic throw as many charges and see what sticks prosecution). Sandusky was convicted on 9 counts of involuntary deviant s e xual intercourse. That doesn't sound benign. With regard to Paterno, I don't know what was going through his head. But, I can say with confidence, if I was in his position there is no way I am just forwarding the information and sitting on my hands. I suspect Paterno regretted actions that were inconsistent with how he built his program.

Paterno screwed up bigtime, but doesn't it beg the question why administrators like Paterno (inside and out of sports) make the same mistake over and over again?

Hell no Sandusky wasn't railroaded. Even his own son testified against him. But I think the previous poster was referring to the fact that Sandusky was acquitted of the rape in the showers in 2001 because the prosecution decided not to call the guy to the stand. And oddly neither did the defense. The man was alternately quoted as saying nothing happened in the shower while at the same time he was suing Sandusky for sexual molestation on other occasions. Both the prosecution and the defense saw him as a wildcard.

The thing I can't understand about Paterno being the main scapegoat is that he was aware of two instances (though the first was reported to police), whereas so many important people in the state were also aware and did nothing. I'm not even getting into police and child services in Centre County, but the Second Mile was told by Paterno and PSU, and the Second Mile BOD is filled with top honchos. The top of the state gov't knew, including prosecutors, for years, and they did nothing. This includes the former governor. And then you have the whole Clinton County school system that terrorized one of Sandusky's victims for years until he dropped out of school, and to this day that school system hasn't been disinfected of horribly corrupt teachers, football coaches, principals and superintendents. Not even an apology for terrorizing the victim. Then there's another very high amount of absurdity in that the Clinton County rape by Sandusky was reported in the media in 2009, a full 2 years BEFORE the story blew apart in 2011. That isolated rape in 2009 apparently had little media interest and even less prosecutorial interest. They sat on it for 2 years. Then in 2011, they convened for pre-prosecutorial testimony, and that's when the McQueary stuff came out. If I had to guess, there were people in the community who were flabbergasted that the 2009 story didn't blow Sandusky out of the water, that the state took no interest, and that this monster was allowed to continue, so someone dropped a dime on McQueary. it was only in 2011 that the governor and his friends in the AG office sent additional investigators to look at Sandusky. And in the end, Second Mile wasn't touched.

Given all this, it seems absurd that beyond Paterno, no one is taking serious blame.

 

[itgoeslike]

Paterno screwed up bigtime, but doesn't it beg the question why administrators like Paterno (inside and out of sports) make the same mistake over and over again?

Hell no Sandusky wasn't railroaded. Even his own son testified against him. But I think the previous poster was referring to the fact that Sandusky was acquitted of the rape in the showers in 2001 because the prosecution decided not to call the guy to the stand. And oddly neither did the defense. The man was alternately quoted as saying nothing happened in the shower while at the same time he was suing Sandusky for s e xual molestation on other occasions. Both the prosecution and the defense saw him as a wildcard.

The thing I can't understand about Paterno being the main scapegoat is that he was aware of two instances (though the first was reported to police), whereas so many important people in the state were also aware and did nothing. I'm not even getting into police and child services in Centre County, but the Second Mile was told by Paterno and PSU, and the Second Mile BOD is filled with top honchos. The top of the state gov't knew, including prosecutors, for years, and they did nothing. This includes the former governor. And then you have the whole Clinton County school system that terrorized one of Sandusky's victims for years until he dropped out of school, and to this day that school system hasn't been disinfected of horribly corrupt teachers, football coaches, principals and superintendents. Not even an apology for terrorizing the victim. Then there's another very high amount of absurdity in that the Clinton County rape by Sandusky was reported in the media in 2009, a full 2 years BEFORE the story blew apart in 2011. That isolated rape in 2009 apparently had little media interest and even less prosecutorial interest. They sat on it for 2 years. Then in 2011, they convened for pre-prosecutorial testimony, and that's when the McQueary stuff came out. If I had to guess, there were people in the community who were flabbergasted that the 2009 story didn't blow Sandusky out of the water, that the state took no interest, and that this monster was allowed to continue, so someone dropped a dime on McQueary. it was only in 2011 that the governor and his friends in the AG office sent additional investigators to look at Sandusky. And in the end, Second Mile wasn't touched.

Given all this, it seems absurd that beyond Paterno, no one is taking serious blame.

I don't necessarily disagree that others were is a position to stem the actions of Sandusky or that Paterno was singled out due to his prominence, while others skated. It happens all the time. I was just addressing the characterization of the testimony against Sandusky and the implication that the charges he was found guilty on were not as serious as they were.

 

[pj]

It's easier and safer to go after the retiring old guy than people still in power who may remain in power for decades; and if the old guy is famous, you get more credit for being "tough" and "upright" for making him your scapegoat.

A lot of corruption there, as upstater says. It was CYA from beginning to end. Just like in the British BBC sex abuse and Rotherham sex slave grooming scandals, the officials weren't really bothered by crime and abuse; their only thought was for their own careers.

 

[The Funster]

Unless an athletic program gains a competitive advantage from it's (in)action, sanctions, like those levied against PSU, should not be considered. The Sandusky situation is one that should have occurred in the courts exclusively. I have always thought that the NCAA sanctions levelled on PSU were an over reaction. The UNC scandal, while also a major academic scandal that reaches far beyond the AD, is also an athletic scandal and that portion should be dealt with by sanctions from the NCAA. Long term issues like that and the emerging Syracuse scandal are both worthy of death penalty consideration, IMO.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Unless an athletic program gains a competitive advantage from it's (in)action, sanctions, like those levied against PSU, should not be considered. The Sandusky situation is one that should have occurred in the courts exclusively. I have always thought that the NCAA sanctions levelled on PSU were an over reaction. The UNC scandal, while also a major academic scandal that reaches far beyond the AD, is also an athletic scandal and that portion should be dealt with by sanctions from the NCAA. Long term issues like that and the emerging Syracuse scandal are both worthy of death penalty consideration, IMO.

The NCAA levied the sanctions as a way for them to improve their image. In other words, a PR stunt. The NCAA said so in its emails, the second round of which were released yesterday. Apparently the Paterno clan has hinted that there's even juicier stuff about to drop as well as their lawsuit moves into its discovery phase. Looks like all those PSU fans screaming about this being a hit job are looking more and more correct by the day as the judges release more of the communications.

 

[Ldandy]

Unless an athletic program gains a competitive advantage from it's (in)action, sanctions, like those levied against PSU, should not be considered. The Sandusky situation is one that should have occurred in the courts exclusively. I have always thought that the NCAA sanctions levelled on PSU were an over reaction. The UNC scandal, while also a major academic scandal that reaches far beyond the AD, is also an athletic scandal and that portion should be dealt with by sanctions from the NCAA. Long term issues like that and the emerging Syracuse scandal are both worthy of death penalty consideration, IMO.

The sanctions had a two fold purpose. 1) They allowed the NCAA to publicly grandstand and play the bad a ss after years of being a punchline for their handling of actual infraction cases like USC, Miami, UNC, and Auburn.

Emmert knew he could get away with hammering PSU, because its own board had formed the narrative against the school in such a profoundly negative way. He had an opportunity to do the right thing and actually follow his own by laws and allow the process to play out, but instead he decided to try to boost his own image at the expense of NCAA Member in good standing.

2) The second purpose for the sanctions was to be a diversion. The PSU Board is run by a powerful sub group of appointed business and industry members that to date no one outside the board understands how they are appointed or how they can be removed. This group controls the voting process and directs all decision making. These people are career politicians and captains of industry. Not so coincidentally many of these members were financial supporters and active participants in Second Mile governance. They knew if Sandusky was viewed as Paterno Problem and a PSU Football Problem, then it wouldn't be scrutinized as Second Mile Problem, or state government problem. If you are the CEO of Merck or US Steel, you don't want to answer to your share holders why you are involved with an organization run by a serial pedophile. Offer up an irresistible scapegoat and the media will have a feedin frenzy.

The entertains thing is that eventually the truth comes out. There are a multitude of people who lack critical thinking skills that bought in to a false narrative. So many of these people will fight to defend this position regardless of what information comes to light. When this sorry affair is over you are going to see plenty of resignations, some restitution, and major NCAA Reform. For those people still in the dark as to what really went on in this case of coercion and collusion, you are I for a Hell of an eye opening.

 

[Ldandy]

Paterno screwed up bigtime, but doesn't it beg the question why administrators like Paterno (inside and out of sports) make the same mistake over and over again?

Hell no Sandusky wasn't railroaded. Even his own son testified against him. But I think the previous poster was referring to the fact that Sandusky was acquitted of the rape in the showers in 2001 because the prosecution decided not to call the guy to the stand. And oddly neither did the defense. The man was alternately quoted as saying nothing happened in the shower while at the same time he was suing Sandusky for s e xual molestation on other occasions. Both the prosecution and the defense saw him as a wildcard.

The thing I can't understand about Paterno being the main scapegoat is that he was aware of two instances (though the first was reported to police), whereas so many important people in the state were also aware and did nothing. I'm not even getting into police and child services in Centre County, but the Second Mile was told by Paterno and PSU, and the Second Mile BOD is filled with top honchos. The top of the state gov't knew, including prosecutors, for years, and they did nothing. This includes the former governor. And then you have the whole Clinton County school system that terrorized one of Sandusky's victims for years until he dropped out of school, and to this day that school system hasn't been disinfected of horribly corrupt teachers, football coaches, principals and superintendents. Not even an apology for terrorizing the victim. Then there's another very high amount of absurdity in that the Clinton County rape by Sandusky was reported in the media in 2009, a full 2 years BEFORE the story blew apart in 2011. That isolated rape in 2009 apparently had little media interest and even less prosecutorial interest. They sat on it for 2 years. Then in 2011, they convened for pre-prosecutorial testimony, and that's when the McQueary stuff came out. If I had to guess, there were people in the community who were flabbergasted that the 2009 story didn't blow Sandusky out of the water, that the state took no interest, and that this monster was allowed to continue, so someone dropped a dime on McQueary. it was only in 2011 that the governor and his friends in the AG office sent additional investigators to look at Sandusky. And in the end, Second Mile wasn't touched.

Given all this, it seems absurd that beyond Paterno, no one is taking serious blame.

How is it absurd? If you offer up a figure as famous as Joe Paterno to the media, they suddenly lose interest in everyone else including then AG Tom Corbett, The Second Mile, PA State Police, Children and Youth etc.

 

[Ldandy]

The sanctions had a two fold purpose. 1) They allowed the NCAA to publicly grandstand and play the bad a ss after years of being a punchline for their handling of actual infraction cases like USC, Miami, UNC, and Auburn.

Emmert knew he could get away with hammering PSU, because its own board had formed the narrative against the school in such a profoundly negative way. He had an opportunity to do the right thing and actually follow his own by laws and allow the process to play out, but instead he decided to try to boost his own image at the expense of a NCAA Member in good standing.

2) The second purpose for the sanctions was to be a diversion. The PSU Board is run by a powerful sub group of appointed business and industry members, that to date no one outside the board understands how they are appointed or how they can be removed. This group controls the voting process and directs all decision making. These people are career politicians and captains of industry. Not so coincidentally many of these members were financial supporters and active participants in Second Mile governance.

They knew if Sandusky was viewed as a Paterno Problem and a PSU Football Problem, then it wouldn't be scrutinized as a Second Mile Problem, or state government problem. If you are the CEO of Merck or US Steel, you don't want to answer to your share holders why you are involved with an organization run by a serial pedophile. Offer up an irresistible scapegoat and the media will have a feeding frenzy.

The entertaing thing is that eventually the truth comes out. There are a multitude of people who lack critical thinking skills that bought in to a false narrative. So many of these people will fight to defend this position regardless of what information comes to light.

When this sorry affair is over you are going to see plenty of resignations, some restitution, and major NCAA Reform. For those people still in the dark as to what really went on in this case of coercion and collusion, you are in for a Hell of an eye opening. Hopefully those who condemned the entire PSU Family for the actions of a few will be man or woman enough to say sorry I was wrong.

 

[UConn990411]

UNC football=LOLOL.

 

[Stinger92860]

UNC football=LOLOL.

What does that make our program?

 

[UConn990411]

What does that make our program?

Try reading the article - has nothing to do with on-field performance.

 

[Stinger92860]

sorry, I missed the link.