bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,645
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3300
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Federal Judge Throws Out PA Lawsuit vs. NCAA
(06-08-2013 03:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (06-08-2013 11:03 AM)bullet Wrote: (06-07-2013 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (06-07-2013 03:35 PM)bullet Wrote: (06-07-2013 08:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: I don't doubt that one bit. The only thing that saved Penn State was the fact that they're the state university for the State of Pennsylvania, with a lot of influential people that have a vested interest in the program...
On the contrary. If they were small, private and in the MAC, no one would have paid any attention and it would have been ruled outside the scope. Montana is hardly getting any attention and they had coverups of rapes by football players, not just crimes by a former coach at Penn St.
The NCAA is punishing them because of their assumption that it was about the football program. Its the NCAA that is making fb bigger than it really is, not PSU. IMO it was more likely about embarrassing the university and the specific officials who let Sandusky hang around with kids after the 2000 charges were dismissed by the police. So I think the NCAA is on very shaky and speculative ground. And they penalized PSU back to 2000 even though that act by Sandusky was properly handled by the university.
PSU didn't "coverup" the acts. They just didn't report the later act to the police. The 2000 charges were reviewed by the police and the police decided not to prosecute. The graduate assistant should have reported the 2001 incident directly to police, but that wasn't a crime. The VP over the police likely had a legal obligation that he failed on. Rather than a coverup, they recklessly disregarded the victims and 1) didn't report the crime; 2) failed to followup as per their own plan; and 3) failed to stop Sandusky from bringing kids into PSU despite their decision to stop him from doing that. There may have been perjury, but that was after the police arrested Sandusky and the university board started to get involved.
As bitcruncher says, the federal government hasn't ruled on their non-disclosure of the crimes under the Clearly Act. That is still a big risk for Penn St. And that should have been the appropriate forum for penalties.
I think that you keep confusing responsibilities.
1. "If they were small, private and in the MAC, no one would have paid any attention and it would have been ruled outside the scope."
The NCAA is investigating the U of Montana as we speak. Just because the media isn't picking it up doesn't mean that the NCAA isn't acting, as you seem to imply. The NCAA and ESPN are two distinct organizations.
2. "[The judicial system] should have been the appropriate forum for penalties."
No. The judicial system is the appropriate forum to resolve legal disputes. PSU's compliance with NCAA rules and regulations isn't an issue that concerns the judicial system unless there are allegations of a breach of contract, which there weren't. The feds should investigate child porn, child prostitution, child molestation, money laundering, possible tax fraud (depending on whether or not someone was getting paid and if so, who they were), perjury, and violations of the Clery Act. So long as PSU wishes to maintain its status as a member of the NCAA, the NCAA is absolutely the appropriate forum to realign PSU's athletic priorities in a manner that promotes safety. Promoting safety in college athletics is actually literally why the NCAA exists.
This has nothing to do with the safety of athletes. Its the safety of children who have nothing to do with the NCAA from a predator who was a former university employee. As for Montana, it would have been dealt with LONG ago if they had been a Penn St. or USC.
3. How you jump to the conclusion that there wasn't a cover up, and that the decision wasn't driven by football is beyond me. I can assure you that PSU wouldn't cover up 30 years of abuse if it was a math professor doing the abuse. Football drove (and still drives) the bus at PSU.
Noone knows what they were thinking but the 3 stooges. People are jumping to the conclusion that it was about football with no facts other than one e-mail where one of the 3 stooges refers to re-thinking things after talking with Paterno. We know nothing about what was said except they talked about being "fair" to Sandusky who they had known for decades. IMO based on my experience with people, the reputation and success of the football program was the last thing on their minds (actually 2nd to last, the victims were last). They were thinking about the whole university and their own personal reputations and legal liability since he had been accused before and they allowed the situation where children were at risk to continue to happen on school property. But again, what they were thinking is speculation since they have not said.
There was no coverup or effort to hide things. There was a failure to act (again, at least prior to the grand jury testimony when Sandusky was removed by the police as a threat, so any perjury to the grand jury should not have been an NCAA concern). Some people have suggested their was some grand conspiracy in 2000 with the police and prosecutor and the current governor, but that is a big stretch.
1. So you think that an organization that knowingly employed and covered up a rapist was creating a safe environment for 17-22 year old boys? Also, FWIW, there are also murder allegations, but I think that the disappearance was unrelated.
2. And you do realize that the final Sandusky investigation began in early 2011, right?* Montana began in 2013. So no, you aren't right. If Montana was PSU, the NCAA would still be screwing around.
*Obviously it had been off and on before that, but the investigations which were made public in early 2011 were what eventually brought him down.
3. You also realized that Sandusky was using university facilities as late as November 2012, and was recruiting for PSU as late as the summer of 2012.* You also realize that he raped young boys WHILE WORKING FOR PSU. He was NOT a former employee. He was a current employee for part of it and a former employee for the rest. Either way, it does not matter. To believe that these actions weren't motivate by football reasons is astonishingly naïve.
Anyway, arguing on the internet based on "personal experiences" is beyond lame, and I can assure you that you don't want to go there. I went to PSU and have actual first hand knowledge of the university making questionable decisions to benefit the football program. However, don't take my word for it, read Vicky Triponey's resignation letter. Anyway, if the admins were as innocent as you would like to pretend, then there wouldn't be any liability on their end.
*Before you say that he wasn't, the camp director and the coach only said that he didn't address the kids in general. The actually both said that they didn't know if he contacted the player (who says that he did).
4. And no cover up? 1. What do you think that perjury is? 2. Why do you think that the FBI is digging through PSU financial records? 3. Why do you think that there was SO much inaction? 4. What do you think that rampant inaction was?
#1. PSU did not knowing employ a child molester. Noone knew anything about 1998 at the Alamo Bowl until 2011. The 2000 incident was dismissed by the prosecutor and Sandusky retired after that. You are totally wrong on your facts. Sandusky was not employed. He was using university facilities as a retired employee was entitled to. He was not supposed to be bringing children in there, but that is one of the areas the PSU leadership failed miserably. I will repeat it again what I said earlier since you obviously missed it-the 3 stooges actions and inaction were reprehensible and the NCAA presidents were understandably appalled. So they will lose lawsuits and may well go to jail. There is no question their actions were wrong. And that Joe Paterno failed morally in not raising questions. The issue is whether the NCAA should have been the one penalizing the university and whether penalizing the football team was appropriate if they did.
As for the "coverup" issue, let me see if I can explain that more simply for you. There was inaction but no coverup prior to the grand jury. There may have been perjury in the grand jury. At that point Sandusky had been stopped by the police, so any coverup was to protect themselves, NOT Sandusky. So the NCAA definitely had no grounds on the "coverup" issue as someone earlier claimed. Once again, the issue is the NCAA's actions, not the PSU 3.
As for personal experiences being lame, I'll also explain that more simply. If anyone thinks the 3 stooges actions were solely about protecting the football team (there can certainly be differences of opinion on whether that was important and how important since they haven't said and no one is a mind reader), they are either 1) waaaay too caught up in sports; 2) too emotional about the horrible crimes and reprehensible actions to be rational about the topic; or 3) totally clueless about human nature.
Their own reputation, future job prospects and legal liability are more important to most people than a football team. Based on my "personal experiences" with human beings, the football team would likely be very low on their priority list. The 3 knew there had been an accusation against Sandusky in 2000. They should have been very concerned about the impact on themselves if he committed a crime of a similar nature in 2001 when they had allowed him to continue to take children onto university facilities. And a lot of people ignore problems. They don't want to deal with them and just irrationally hope they go away. They could have just hoped it wasn't what McQueary thought and hoped Sandusky didn't do it again. That would not be uncommon human behavior. People often don't do the right thing and often don't behave rationally. Doing the right thing is often hard. Doing nothing is always easy.
|
|