Michigan hit with 6 allegations of Level 1 violations for Sign Stealing Cheating

[Peace is Our Profession]

You're about 13 years to late there Gomer

No, just explaining what violations Penn State committed. The letter explains that. The sanctions were rolled back later when the NCAA determined that Penn State was cooperating with Sen Mitchell once the criminals in the administration were fired and later imprisoned.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Dr Anderson stats. 1050 victims, $490 million to settle with aforementioned victims, yet this muppet comes over here to troll because people are discussing how UofM and Harbaugh cheated to win a National Championship.

Might not want to throw that stone in your glass house @Peace is Our Profession

Not defending UM at all. Just pointing out that Penn State too failed as an institution by covering up Sandusky's crimes.

 

[Obliviax]

No, just explaining what violations Penn State committed. The letter explains that. The sanctions were rolled back later when the NCAA determined that Penn State was cooperating with Sen Mitchell once the criminals in the administration were fired and later imprisoned.

Actually, Penn State committed no such violations. Sandusky was a retired, former employee at the time.

 

[palmettolion]

Not defending UM at all. Just pointing out that Penn State too failed as an institution by covering up Sandusky's crimes.

Tell me what that has to do with UofM football cheating, which is the topic of this thread?


Nah, you're just trash, trying to troll because you don't like the subject matter being discussed, so you're trying to derail the thread.

You brought up the Sandusky scandal because you didn't think anyone would toss out that your institution harbored a molester.

Complete lack of self awareness.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Actually, Penn State committed no such violations. Sandusky was a retired, former employee at the time.

They were aware of Sandusky at least as early as 1998 when he was an employee. A licensed psychologist reported that to them then.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Tell me what that has to do with UofM football cheating, which is the topic of this thread?


Nah, you're just trash, trying to troll because you don't like the subject matter being discussed, so you're trying to derail the thread.

You brought up the Sandusky scandal because you didn't think anyone would toss out that your institution harbored a molester.

Complete lack of self awareness.

I think you should exhibit some self awareness too. Your prior administration covered up for a pedophile.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Dr Anderson stats. 1050 victims, $490 million to settle with aforementioned victims, yet this muppet comes over here to troll because people are discussing how UofM and Harbaugh cheated to win a National Championship.

Might not want to throw that stone in your glass house @Peace is Our Profession

Just the name alone screams ‘self important idiot’

If that is his/her profession I suggest she/he quit wasting time on sports boards and hustle over to Gaza. Or Moscow. Or Tehran. Or Kyiv. Or Sudan. Or Somalia. Or the Republic of Central Africa. Or a dozen other countries.

 

[palmettolion]

I think you should exhibit some self awareness too. Your prior administration covered up for a pedophile.

Did I come over to your board to troll?

What self awareness? Like I haven't been called a pedo by just about every big10 fanbase because of what JS did and because I graduated from PSU?

 

[Obliviax]

They were aware of Sandusky at least as early as 1998 when he was an employee. A licensed psychologist reported that to them then.

you have no idea what you are talking about. The 1998 incident was reported to the police and fully investigated. In fact, the police launched two "sting" operations to try to get Sandusky to implicate himself. There were two psychologists used. The first said nothing untoward took place. The second said that Sandusky may have been "grooming" the child but this is not a crime unless it is an accessory to a crime. The DA decided to not press charges because the case lacked evidence.

The other incident was when Sandusky was NOT an employee but had access to facilities as a retired coach. The incident was reported to Paterno who reported it to the AD and SVP of Finance (campus police reported up through him). This is the guidance that still exists today for a coach in similar circumstances (report it to two people, one outside the sports vertical reporting chain, and get out of the way). Since the incident was not reported at the time it was seen, there was nobody to corroborate the story. The person who reported it, an assistant coach, said that he did not SEE anything but suspected. And that is how this all blew up.

Later, piecing together dozens of events, the police were able to create a view of Sandusky nobody ever saw. Not PSU, not his friends, not his Second Mile Charity, not the players...nobody. Good police work but had nothing to do with each individual case beforehand.

These are the facts. I could write a book on it. Just in case you really wanted to know.

 

[palmettolion]

Just the name alone screams ‘self important idiot’

If that is his/her profession I suggest she/he quit wasting time on sports boards and hustle over to Gaza. Or Moscow. Or Tehran. Or Kyiv. Or Sudan. Or Somalia. Or the Republic of Central Africa. Or a dozen other countries.

Muppet can't cope with the fact that UM had to cheat to win a natty, Sherod is likely cooked after deleting those 50 odd messages to his boy Connor and that his wife has probably sucked or screwed most of his neighbors while he was stationed overseas.

 

[bcspsu]

you have no idea what you are talking about. The 1998 incident was reported to the police and fully investigated. In fact, the police launched two "sting" operations to try to get Sandusky to implicate himself. Their were two psychologists used. The first said nothing untoward took place. The second said that Sandusky may have been "grooming" the child but this is not a crime unless it is an accessorty to a crime.

The other incident was when Sandusky was NOT an employee but had access to facilities as a retired coach. The incident was reported to Paterno who reporited it to the AD and SVP of Finance (campus police reported up through him). Since the incident was not reported at the time it was seen, there was nobody to corroborate the story. The person who reproted it, an assistant coach, said that he did not SEE anything but suspected. And that is how this all blew up.

Later, peicing together dozens of events, the police were able to create a view of Sandusky nobody ever saw. Not PSU, not his friends, not his Second Mile Chartiy, not the players...nobody. Good police work but had nothing to do with each individual case beforehand.

Your above post is exactly what the gutless wonders who ran PSU in the fall of 2011 should've said instead of acting like a bunch of cowards, which not only damaged the reputation of the University as a whole but came very close to destroying the football program for no good reason and did destroy the reputation of one of the greatest figures in college sports history, which was despicable.

 

[Phil's Rug]

No, just explaining what violations Penn State committed. The letter explains that. The sanctions were rolled back later when the NCAA determined that Penn State was cooperating with Sen Mitchell once the criminals in the administration were fired and later imprisoned.

Blah blah blah, get lost putz

 

[Obliviax]

Blah blah blah, get lost putz

yeah. I don't understand the point. Is Michigan guilty or not? It has nothing to do with Penn State or the Catholic Church or USC. It is about UM. Blaming other organizations would appear to be a knee-jerk reaction to guilt.

It falls between "denial" and "anger" but it is on the road to acceptance.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

you have no idea what you are talking about. The 1998 incident was reported to the police and fully investigated. In fact, the police launched two "sting" operations to try to get Sandusky to implicate himself. There were two psychologists used. The first said nothing untoward took place. The second said that Sandusky may have been "grooming" the child but this is not a crime unless it is an accessory to a crime. The DA decided to not press charges because the case lacked evidence.

You are not correct. There was only one psychologist used since the other (Seasock) was neither licensed, a PhD nor a psychologist. He was a counselor. Alycia Chambers reported to Penn State that Sandusky was a likely pedophile. Here. The elected DA declined to press charges due to it being a singular event and that Sandusky was a local god. But Penn State knew about it.

The other incident was when Sandusky was NOT an employee but had access to facilities as a retired coach. The incident was reported to Paterno who reported it to the AD and SVP of Finance (campus police reported up through him).

Both of them (Curley and Schultz) went to jail for covering it up.

This is the guidance that still exists today for a coach in similar circumstances (report it to two people, one outside the sports vertical reporting chain, and get out of the way).

Which Paterno did not do as he participated in the decision later on not to report Sandusky. The emails show this.

Since the incident was not reported at the time it was seen, there was nobody to corroborate the story.

It was a third party who saw it and reported it the next day.

The person who reported it, an assistant coach, said that he did not SEE anything but suspected. And that is how this all blew up.

He was a Grad Assistant and he reported that he did see inappropriate sexual conduct. This was corroborated by Paterno when he was interviewed by OAG Investigator Sassano.

Later, piecing together dozens of events, the police were able to create a view of Sandusky nobody ever saw. Not PSU, not his friends, not his Second Mile Charity, not the players...nobody. Good police work but had nothing to do with each individual case beforehand.

PSU covered up the 2001 abuse and then later when Aaron Fisher accused Sandusky in 2008 MM was found and told the police what he saw that was covered up by CSS. Then with the help of Sara Ganim, more kids were able to come forward thinking they would be believed.

These are the facts. I could write a book on it. Just in case you really wanted to know.

I've corrected some of that.

 

[Obliviax]

You are not correct. There was only one psychologist used since the other (Seasock) was neither licensed, a PhD nor a psychologist. He was a counselor. Alycia Chambers reported to Penn State that Sandusky was a likely pedophile. Here. The elected DA declined to press charges due to it being a singular event and that Sandusky was a local god. But Penn State knew about it.

Both of them (Curley and Schultz) went to jail for covering it up.

Which Paterno did not do as he participated in the decision later on not to report Sandusky. The emails show this.

It was a third party who saw it and reported it the next day.

He was a Grad Assistant and he reported that he did see inappropriate sexual conduct. This was corroborated by Paterno when he was interviewed by OAG Investigator Sassano.

PSU covered up the 2001 abuse and then later when Aaron Fisher accused Sandusky in 2008 MM was found and told the police what he saw that was covered up by CSS. Then with the help of Sara Ganim, more kids were able to come forward thinking they would be believed.

I've corrected some of that.

you are demonstrably incorrect in your first paragraph (link) so I am not going to take the time to read the rest of your drivel.

Here is your proof. Alycia Chambers evaluated him and called him a "likely pedophile". Of course, "likely" is not a criminally actionable term. So they hired a second named John Seasock.

After Chambers’ evaluation, a counselor — not a licensed psychologist — named John Seasock interviewed the 11-year-old boy, and he reported no suspicious actions from Sandusky.​

​

When it came time for law enforcement to decide whether to investigate further, Seasock’s report was considered over Chambers’. The investigation on that specific case stopped dead in its tracks. (because Chambers used the term "likely" which is not a basis for bringing charges). ​

​

Since her evaluation in 1998, Chambers said a few reporting regulations have changed, and psychologists who write reports can stay in the loop with where the case ends up in the system — something she didn’t get.​

​

Reflecting on that time, Chambers said the process of interviewing the survivor in 1998 and investigating his situation was not ideal.​

​

The boy underwent multiple evaluations from different adults alone within his own home, which she said is not the best practice as it can be detrimental for children to recite their trauma repeatedly.​

​

Much of this was never known by PSU officials and especially, Joe Paterno. And, records are destroyed after a period of time given the incendiary nature of these accusations. It is important to point out that this all occurred BEFORE the Catholic Church scandal which caused major rewrites to laws and procedures in such matters.

 

[Nostraduzzi]

WackaNole is back with his BS.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

you are demonstrably incorrect in your first paragraph (link) so I am not going to take the time to read the rest of your drivel.

Here is your proof. Alycia Chambers evaluated him and called him a "likely pedophile". Of course, "likely" is not a criminally actionable term. So they hired a second named John Seasock.

But saying someone is a likely pedophile does not mean it should have been disregarded by Penn State in 1998 and certainly should have resulted in Sandusky not being allowed to further bring children on campus and shower with them.

After Chambers’ evaluation, a counselor — not a licensed psychologist — named John Seasock interviewed the 11-year-old boy, and he reported no suspicious actions from Sandusky.​

​

When it came time for law enforcement to decide whether to investigate further, Seasock’s report was considered over Chambers’. The investigation on that specific case stopped dead in its tracks. (because Chambers used the term "likely" which is not a basis for bringing charges). ​

​

Since her evaluation in 1998, Chambers said a few reporting regulations have changed, and psychologists who write reports can stay in the loop with where the case ends up in the system — something she didn’t get.​

​

Reflecting on that time, Chambers said the process of interviewing the survivor in 1998 and investigating his situation was not ideal.​

​

The boy underwent multiple evaluations from different adults alone within his own home, which she said is not the best practice as it can be detrimental for children to recite their trauma repeatedly.​

Here's some input from a colleague of Chambers. "
After State College psychologist Alycia Chambers talked to an 11-year-old boy about Jerry Sandusky showering with him in May 1998, she concluded Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming the boy for sexual abuse.

A couple days later, a counselor, John Seasock, met with the boy and had a different conclusion. The showering episode, Seasock determined, was rather the result of a routine that coaches like Sandusky do after a workout.

Centre County prosecutors did not pursue criminal charges against Sandusky after that incident, and whether the competing conclusions factored into that decision remains a subject of conjecture.

But, almost 14 years later, the fact that Seasock wasn’t a psychologist at the time, according to state records, raises questions about how much weight his opinion should have carried.

“To take that person’s word over a psychologist who has been prepared and licensed by the state is, I would say, very surprising and a serious concern,” said Marolyn Morford, a State College psychologist.

Morford said Tuesday she’s been alarmed by Seasock’s representation as a psychologist at the time in question. That’s how the Penn State police investigation report refers to him, and that’s how Seasock has been referred to in media reports after the document was leaked Saturday."

​

Much of this was never known by PSU officials and especially, Joe Paterno.

It was in the police report that PSU tried to hide in it's files by placing in under admin classification. The full report by Chambers indicating Sandusky as a pedo was given to PSU.

And, records are destroyed after a period of time given the incendiary nature of these accusations.

Not the police report in this case which had Chamber's report.

It is important to point out that this all occurred BEFORE the Catholic Church scandal which caused major rewrites to laws and procedures in such matters.

Yet Penn State knew in 1998 that a licensed PhD psychologist had indicated Sandusky as a pedophile. And with that knowledge still allowed him to shower with children in their facilities.

 

[bcspsu]

But saying someone is a likely pedophile does not mean it should have been disregarded by Penn State in 1998 and certainly should have resulted in Sandusky not being allowed to further bring children on campus and shower with them.

Here's some input from a colleague of Chambers. "
After State College psychologist Alycia Chambers talked to an 11-year-old boy about Jerry Sandusky showering with him in May 1998, she concluded Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming the boy for sexual abuse.

A couple days later, a counselor, John Seasock, met with the boy and had a different conclusion. The showering episode, Seasock determined, was rather the result of a routine that coaches like Sandusky do after a workout.

Centre County prosecutors did not pursue criminal charges against Sandusky after that incident, and whether the competing conclusions factored into that decision remains a subject of conjecture.

But, almost 14 years later, the fact that Seasock wasn’t a psychologist at the time, according to state records, raises questions about how much weight his opinion should have carried.

“To take that person’s word over a psychologist who has been prepared and licensed by the state is, I would say, very surprising and a serious concern,” said Marolyn Morford, a State College psychologist.

Morford said Tuesday she’s been alarmed by Seasock’s representation as a psychologist at the time in question. That’s how the Penn State police investigation report refers to him, and that’s how Seasock has been referred to in media reports after the document was leaked Saturday."

It was in the police report that PSU tried to hide in it's files by placing in under admin classification. The full report by Chambers indicating Sandusky as a pedo was given to PSU.

Not the police report in this case which had Chamber's report.

Yet Penn State knew in 1998 that a licensed PhD psychologist had indicated Sandusky as a pedophile. And with that knowledge still allowed him to shower with children in their facilities.

Why are you bringing up something that happened at PSU almost a decade and a half ago that involved the actions of the perpetrator that happened even longer ago, especially when that incident had nothing to do with on-field matters like Michigan's current predicament does? The one was a criminal matter that had no effect on games in which the perpetrator was tried and convicted and is serving jail time; that case is closed. The other still is very much open and probably had a direct effect on the outcome of games, which, if proven, needs to be punished very harshly.

I just watched an ESPN show on John Calipari, and two of his Final Fours (one at UMass and the other at Memphis) were stripped by the NCAA because of violations. If I were you, I'd be a little concerned that Michigan's honors from 2023 are going to be stripped, although I doubt that will happen because it's Michigan.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Why are you bringing up something that happened at PSU almost a decade and a half ago that involved the actions of the perpetrator that happened even longer ago, especially when that incident had nothing to do with on-field matters like Michigan's current predicament does? The one was a criminal matter that had no effect on games in which the perpetrator was tried and convicted and is serving jail time; that case is closed. The other still is very much open and probably had a direct effect on the outcome of games, which, if proven, needs to be punished very harshly.

I just watched an ESPN show on John Calipari, and two of his Final Fours (one at UMass and the other at Memphis) were stripped by the NCAA because of violations. If I were you, I'd be a little concerned that Michigan's honors from 2023 are going to be stripped, although I doubt that will happen because it's Michigan.

You guys brought it up several posts back. I'm just correcting the errors

 

[Obliviax]

But saying someone is a likely pedophile does not mean it should have been disregarded by Penn State in 1998 and certainly should have resulted in Sandusky not being allowed to further bring children on campus and shower with them.

Here's some input from a colleague of Chambers. "
After State College psychologist Alycia Chambers talked to an 11-year-old boy about Jerry Sandusky showering with him in May 1998, she concluded Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming the boy for sexual abuse.

A couple days later, a counselor, John Seasock, met with the boy and had a different conclusion. The showering episode, Seasock determined, was rather the result of a routine that coaches like Sandusky do after a workout.

Centre County prosecutors did not pursue criminal charges against Sandusky after that incident, and whether the competing conclusions factored into that decision remains a subject of conjecture.

But, almost 14 years later, the fact that Seasock wasn’t a psychologist at the time, according to state records, raises questions about how much weight his opinion should have carried.

“To take that person’s word over a psychologist who has been prepared and licensed by the state is, I would say, very surprising and a serious concern,” said Marolyn Morford, a State College psychologist.

Morford said Tuesday she’s been alarmed by Seasock’s representation as a psychologist at the time in question. That’s how the Penn State police investigation report refers to him, and that’s how Seasock has been referred to in media reports after the document was leaked Saturday."

It was in the police report that PSU tried to hide in it's files by placing in under admin classification. The full report by Chambers indicating Sandusky as a pedo was given to PSU.

Not the police report in this case which had Chamber's report.

Yet Penn State knew in 1998 that a licensed PhD psychologist had indicated Sandusky as a pedophile. And with that knowledge still allowed him to shower with children in their facilities.

I proved you didn't have a clue about what you were talking about. Now you double down. It wasn't 'disregarded'. The police had two, TWO, sting operations where they they observed while the boy approached Sandusky with the intent of getting him to say something they could use to indict him. They had a psychologist that used the term "likely", which is not an actionable scenario in any court in the nation. So they hired a second opinion, Seasock, who had an even more benign view. After several months, a half dozen investigators, and a lot of investigation, they had nothing actionable and dropped the case. As is, or at least was, the law in PA, records were destroyed after a number of years.

This all had ZERO to do with PSU except that he was an employee of the university who had constitutional rights.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You should stop as I am trying to point out to you your errors without embarrassing you. But I'll be happy to do that if you persist.

 

[Nostraduzzi]

WHCANole, go away. Far away. Bo knew. He was a POS just like you.

 

[OKLionFan]

SAIP. This seems appropriate here.

 

[Delcolion915]

This thread has gone off the rails. What are the coming sanctions against Michigan? That's the question. 2012 is dead and gone.

 

[psu00]

SAIP. This seems appropriate here.

View embedded media

Pure genius.

 

[joeaubie21]

No, just explaining what violations Penn State committed. The letter explains that. The sanctions were rolled back later when the NCAA determined that Penn State was cooperating with Sen Mitchell once the criminals in the administration were fired and later imprisoned.

E-e-ee-e-ee-ee-e-e!!!!!

 

[joeaubie21]

I proved you didn't have a clue about what you were talking about. Now you double down. It wasn't 'disregarded'. The police had two, TWO, sting operations where they they observed while the boy approached Sandusky with the intent of getting him to say something they could use to indict him. They had a psychologist that used the term "likely", which is not an actionable scenario in any court in the nation. So they hired a second opinion, Seasock, who had an even more benign view. After several months, a half dozen investigators, and a lot of investigation, they had nothing actionable and dropped the case. As is, or at least was, the law in PA, records were destroyed after a number of years.

This all had ZERO to do with PSU except that he was an employee of the university who had constitutional rights.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You should stop as I am trying to point out to you your errors without embarrassing you. But I'll be happy to do that if you persist.

Piss Is His Profession is nicster aside from an ass.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

I proved you didn't have a clue about what you were talking about. Now you double down.

No, you really haven't proven anything of the sort.

It wasn't 'disregarded'.

The report was absolutely disregarded by PSU who continued to let Sandusky shower with kids when a licensed psychologist told them he was a likely pedophile.

The police had two, TWO, sting operations where they they observed while the boy approached Sandusky with the intent of getting him to say something they could use to indict him.

The police wanted to charge Sandusky but the elected DA probably fearing for his job didn't think they had enough to prosecute him. This does not absolve PSU from banning Sandusky from bringing kids to campus and showering with them. That the DA didn't charge him did not mean PSU should have sat on their hands.

They had a psychologist that used the term "likely", which is not an actionable scenario in any court in the nation.

But certainly enough for PSU to take action and deny him bringing kids on campus and showering with them AND reporting him to DPS if he disobeyed them. Do you think Sandusky would have gotten Emeritus status from the board if they had seen Chambers report? Not likely.

So they hired a second opinion, Seasock, who had an even more benign view

And was far less qualified.

. After several months, a half dozen investigators, and a lot of investigation, they had nothing actionable and dropped the case. As is, or at least was, the law in PA, records were destroyed after a number of years.

Obviously the police report containing Chamber's report was not destroyed (and was not required to be under PA law only the CYS one)

This all had ZERO to do with PSU except that he was an employee of the university who had constitutional rights.

Who was competently reported as a likely pedophile and who was bringing children onto PSU and showering with them. It had EVERYTHING to do with PSU. Sandusky has no constitutional right to Emeritus status or to bring kids on campus and shower with them. You are conflating PSU's duties with criminal legal standards which PSU was not obliged to follow.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You should stop as I am trying to point out to you your errors without embarrassing you. But I'll be happy to do that if you persist.

I will persist and you are only embarrassing yourself.

 

[Lion_Backer]

No, you really haven't proven anything of the sort.

The report was absolutely disregarded by PSU who continued to let Sandusky shower with kids when a licensed psychologist told them he was a likely pedophile.

The police wanted to charge Sandusky but the elected DA probably fearing for his job didn't think they had enough to prosecute him. This does not absolve PSU from banning Sandusky from bringing kids to campus and showering with them. That the DA didn't charge him did not mean PSU should have sat on their hands.

But certainly enough for PSU to take action and deny him bringing kids on campus and showering with them AND reporting him to DPS if he disobeyed them. Do you think Sandusky would have gotten Emeritus status from the board if they had seen Chambers report? Not likely.

And was far less qualified.

Obviously the police report containing Chamber's report was not destroyed (and was not required to be under PA law only the CYS one)

Who was competently reported as a likely pedophile and who was bringing children onto PSU and showering with them. It had EVERYTHING to do with PSU. Sandusky has no constitutional right to Emeritus status or to bring kids on campus and shower with them. You are conflating PSU's duties with criminal legal standards which PSU was not obliged to follow.

I will persist and you are only embarrassing yourself.

 

[Obliviax]

No, you really haven't proven anything of the sort.

The report was absolutely disregarded by PSU who continued to let Sandusky shower with kids when a licensed psychologist told them he was a likely pedophile.

The police wanted to charge Sandusky but the elected DA probably fearing for his job didn't think they had enough to prosecute him. This does not absolve PSU from banning Sandusky from bringing kids to campus and showering with them. That the DA didn't charge him did not mean PSU should have sat on their hands.

But certainly enough for PSU to take action and deny him bringing kids on campus and showering with them AND reporting him to DPS if he disobeyed them. Do you think Sandusky would have gotten Emeritus status from the board if they had seen Chambers report? Not likely.

And was far less qualified.

Obviously the police report containing Chamber's report was not destroyed (and was not required to be under PA law only the CYS one)

Who was competently reported as a likely pedophile and who was bringing children onto PSU and showering with them. It had EVERYTHING to do with PSU. Sandusky has no constitutional right to Emeritus status or to bring kids on campus and shower with them. You are conflating PSU's duties with criminal legal standards which PSU was not obliged to follow.

I will persist and you are only embarrassing yourself.

You are a troll that has no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Delcolion915]

Oh my God just close the thread. The 2011 conspiracy crew has come back from the dead 😂

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

You are a troll that has no idea what you are talking about.

I do know this case very well. As you know.

 

[Obliviax]

I do know this case very well. As you know.

yet, not enough to know that there were two sting operations and two concelors who evaluated Sandusky in the '98 incident. You didn't know that PSU had nothing to do with it and probably knew very little of the details since, by law, it would have to be kept confidential lest risk major civil litigation and, perhaps, criminal charges. You also don't know the laws relative to criminal activity in 1998 in terms of "grooming" or the criminal rules of engagement at that time.

You don't even seem to know the NCAA guidelines for a coach when any type of accusation is made to him/her. After years of review of the Sandusky case, the NCAA came up with guidance to coaches to "report it to the AD and also to someone outside the sports reporting structure" and then get out of the way to let them handle it. This is, of course, exactly what Paterno did in '01. I'd also remind you that the entire scenario happened when all of the prosecutors had the wrong date by at least a year (which tells you how credible their information was after 10 years had gone by).

Sorry, your complete lack of understanding and knowledge about '98 completely disqualifies you from anything else relative to JS and PSU. Understanding what happened in '98 is foundational to understanding what happened in '01 as well as how events occurred in 2011.

 

[wolve1972]

This is nothing but Commie BS propaganda. Sherrone and the Maize & Blue will roll to the NC in 2025.....take it to the bank

 

[heckmans]

I think you should exhibit some self awareness too. Your prior administration covered up for a pedophile.

Just to be clear... despite what you think you know, you have no idea what you are talking about. There was no cover up. In fact, they kept bringing more people in to the conversation. It was exactly the opposite of a cover-up.

 

[Obliviax]

Just to be clear... despite what you think you know, you have no idea what you are talking about. There was no cover up. In fact, they kept bringing more people in to the conversation. It was exactly the opposite of a cover-up.

well, it is classic "just believe what you want to believe" BS. It is a very complex case and you need to week through years and years of events. Worse you need to understand criminal law, how the criminal justice system works and the nuance to child abuse cases specifically. You also have to know that all of this happened BEFORE the Catholic Church scandal meaning the laws substantially changed in the early 2000's. (Boston Globe's reporting in late 2002). You also have to know JS's changing roles with PSU as well as his position with The Second Mile. The scandal that was left covered is the Second Mile's complicit position along with the complete lack of oversight by the state of PA that allowed this to go on for over a decade (no records, no enforcement of records, high schools, charities, government agencies and yes, PSU).

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

yet, not enough to know that there were two sting operations and two concelors who evaluated Sandusky in the '98 incident.

Another mistake. Only one counselor evaluated Sandusky in 1998 and the other was a far more qualified (and as it turned out correct) licensed PhD Psychologist.

You didn't know that PSU had nothing to do with it and probably knew very little of the details since, by law, it would have to be kept confidential lest risk major civil litigation and, perhaps, criminal charges.

I do know that in 1998 PSU had a report from a licensed PhD Psychologist who told them Sandusky was a likely Pedo.

You also don't know the laws relative to criminal activity in 1998 in terms of "grooming" or the criminal rules of engagement at that time.

I do know that "inappropriate sexual" activity which Joe admitted that he was told by MM in 2001 should have been reported to police immediately. It was not and three top admins at PSU went to jail.

You don't even seem to know the NCAA guidelines for a coach when any type of accusation is made to him/her. After years of review of the Sandusky case, the NCAA came up with guidance to coaches to "report it to the AD and also to someone outside the sports reporting structure" and then get out of the way to let them handle it. This is, of course, exactly what Paterno did in '01.

Yet the emails show that Joe DID involve himself in the decision later not to report Sandusky and so he did not follow the guidelines.

I'd also remind you that the entire scenario happened when all of the prosecutors had the wrong date by at least a year (which tells you how credible their information was after 10 years had gone by).

Not unusual in many cases. They got it right when it went to trial.

Sorry, your complete lack of understanding and knowledge about '98 completely disqualifies you from anything else relative to JS and PSU. Understanding what happened in '98 is foundational to understanding what happened in '01 as well as how events occurred in 2011.

I've explained that what happened in 1998 is that PSU was warned by a competent Psychologist that Sandusky was a pedophile. They disregarded that report and it cost them over 60 million dollars, the imprisonment of their top three admins and the reputation of their god like coach. I know more about this case than apparently you do.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Just to be clear... despite what you think you know, you have no idea what you are talking about. There was no cover up. In fact, they kept bringing more people in to the conversation. It was exactly the opposite of a cover-up.

Their absolutely was a cover up and the top three admins went to jail for endangering the welfare of a child. Further, the US government fined PSU for violating the Clery Act because they did not report Sandusky.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

well, it is classic "just believe what you want to believe" BS. It is a very complex case and you need to week through years and years of events.

I think that is what the JoeBots are doing, just believing what they wish to believe.

Worse you need to understand criminal law, how the criminal justice system works and the nuance to child abuse cases specifically.

Criminal law procedures did not prevent PSU from taking action to restrict Sandusky from the campus in 1998. They had ample reason to do so but negligently failed and paid a heavy price later. Of course, not as heavy as what the kids paid.

You also have to know that all of this happened BEFORE the Catholic Church scandal meaning the laws substantially changed in the early 2000's. (Boston Globe's reporting in late 2002). You also have to know JS's changing roles with PSU as well as his position with The Second Mile. The scandal that was left covered is the Second Mile's complicit position along with the complete lack of oversight by the state of PA that allowed this to go on for over a decade (no records, no enforcement of records, high schools, charities, government agencies and yes, PSU).

TSM was investigated by the Federal Government and they were not found guilty of anything and no action was taken by the Feds against any TSM folks. JoeBots like to deflect to TSM but their is not "there there". Here is a good recap about this written by a leading JoeBot nonetheless. TSM nothing found

 

[Obliviax]

Another mistake. Only one counselor evaluated Sandusky in 1998 and the other was a far more qualified (and as it turned out correct) licensed PhD Psychologist.

I do know that in 1998 PSU had a report from a licensed PhD Psychologist who told them Sandusky was a likely Pedo.

I do know that "inappropriate sexual" activity which Joe admitted that he was told by MM in 2001 should have been reported to police immediately. It was not and three top admins at PSU went to jail.

Yet the emails show that Joe DID involve himself in the decision later not to report Sandusky and so he did not follow the guidelines.

Not unusual in many cases. They got it right when it went to trial.

I've explained that what happened in 1998 is that PSU was warned by a competent Psychologist that Sandusky was a pedophile. They disregarded that report and it cost them over 60 million dollars, the imprisonment of their top three admins and the reputation of their god like coach. I know more about this case than apparently you do.

Again, you are wrong. A "counselor" can have a PhD. You are trying to escape your faulty posts with pedantic BS. The fact remains that he was evaluated by two qualified people.

Worse, for your silly position, the PhD gave law enforcement nothing to go on by using the term "likely". (Like it is "likely" that others on the Michigan coaching staff didn't know). So law enforcement, not giving up, when the extra mile to hire a SECOND person to evaluate Sandusky. Even worse, they then conducted TWO STING operations to see if JS would entrap himself.

Two counselors (one a PhD and the other with a Masters), two sting operations, and a half dozen investigators regarding the '98 incident shows that it was completely and totally investigated. And with that exhaustive investigation, they decided that there was not enough evidence to bring charges. You can disagree with that decision but you are 100% incorrect in suggesting it was ignored. And this isn't every PSU who had no involvement in the matter. (Sandusky was simply an employee who was under investigation for something that allegedly took place outside of any physical or employment-related matter).

You are wrong on the facts. You are wrong on the records. You are wrong on the sequence of events. You are wrong on how police work. You are wrong on your understanding of the law. And you are wrong on PSU's involvement.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Again, you are wrong. A "counselor" can have a PhD. You are trying to escape your faulty posts with pedantic BS. The fact remains that he was evaluated by two qualified people.

But Seasock did not have a PhD and Chambers did. She was licensed as well land clearly more qualified.

Worse, for your silly position, the PhD gave law enforcement nothing to go on by using the term "likely". (Like it is "likely" that others on the Michigan coaching staff didn't know). So law enforcement, not giving up, when the extra mile to hire a SECOND person to evaluate Sandusky. Even worse, they then conducted TWO STING operations to see if JS would entrap himself.

She gave PSU plenty to go on in restricting Sandusky from campus and showering with kids there. The sting operations wouldn't have produced anything as pedophiles are generally too smart for those.

Two counselors (one a PhD and the other with a Masters),

One counselor without a PhD and one Psychologist with a PhD.

two sting operations, and a half dozen investigators regarding the '98 incident shows that it was completely and totally investigated.

But that didn't limit what PSU could do regarding Sandusky

And with that exhaustive investigation, they decided that there was not enough evidence to bring charges. You can disagree with that decision but you are 100% incorrect in suggesting it was ignored.

It was ignored by PSU and they continued to allow Sandusky access to campus and showering with kids. Once again, the fact that the local DA chose not to charge Sandusky does NOT mean PSU was powerless to do anything on their end. That argument of yours is bogus.

And this isn't every PSU who had no involvement in the matter. (Sandusky was simply an employee who was under investigation for something that allegedly took place outside of any physical or employment-related matter).

What he does on campus (abusing kids) IS very MUCH related to his employment and to the responsibilities of PSU.

You are wrong on the facts. You are wrong on the records. You are wrong on the sequence of events. You are wrong on how police work. You are wrong on your understanding of the law. And you are wrong on PSU's involvement.

I am right on the facts, records, events, police, law and the record bears me out. Three top admins went to prison, PSU paid 10s of millions in fines and damages and admitted to wrongdoing. You are wrong now and will always be and when you run into someone like me who knows the case well you will be called out and refuted. Even in your own silo.