NCAA to subpoena Clemente, Berlin, and Thornburgh's firm

[WeR0206]

No, it isn't. Paterno could have done more, based on the available evidence. He may have been involved in the decision to do less than should have been done back then, based on the available evidence.

He is far less to blame than CSS, again, based on the available evidence, but that does not mean he did "nothing wrong and that's a fact".

Yeah? And what "evidence" are you basing these claims on?

Please don't tell me it's the "after talking it over with Joe..." email (TC was basically saying he wanted to confront JS directly vs. going behind his back) or the notes/emails mentioning DPW. C/S weren't contemplating informing DPW to report suspected child abuse two weeks later, they contemplated bringing in DPW (as an "independent child welfare agency") if JS didn't agree with their new directives that his showering behavior was inappropriate, wrong, and needed to stop.

If they were going to report suspected child abuse and if Courtney looked the statutes up correctly that Sunday, they would have been told they needed to make a verbal call to Childline ASAP and a written report to CC CYS within 48 HOURS, not talk to DPW two WEEKS later. That whole email where the admins are talking about DPW is a RED HERRING by freeh, and apparently you are still buying it....go figure...

 

[mdahmus]

Well, considering I'm an Ohio State alumnus, saying I can't see things clearly like PSU fans because of "hero worshipping" of Paterno is kind of silly.

Also, you had a reputation for being a self-loathing PSU fan for awhile around BSD. You would go out of your way to take shots at PSU constantly while still saying you were a fan. You called the 2011 schedule a creampuff schedule. Alabama? Iowa (when they were still good... just a year and a half removed from an Orange Bowl win)? and a final stretch of vs. Nebraska, @ Ohio State, and vs. Wisconsin is a creampuff schedule? That is a brutal final stretch. I mean, sure, you're entitled to your opinion on things like that, but it just seems consistent with your MO of going out of your way to bash Penn State whenever possible. You had the reputation for awhile. And it is convenient that - after disappearing from BSD for awhile - you showed up exactly one week after Paterno was fired. Literally days after PSU hired a PR firm and the first social media/blog monitoring reports starting pouring into the BoT inboxes. I might have to change my opinion. You may very well be a hired gun, because your past history on BSD would have made you a ripe candidate for PSU's PR firm to recruit you for the purposes of astroturfing.

I "showed up one week after Paterno was fired" because my ban was lifted, genius. And I never, ever, ever said a PSU schedule with Alabama on it was a creampuff year - you are conflating two very different seasons there.

 

[mdahmus]

I gotta get back to work, because I don't get paid to do this like some people.... But... what would you have had Joe do? You hold him to a ridiculously high standard based on what he heard being pretty vague hearsay information. I'll chekc your response later.

Joe should have pressed CSS to explain what they actually did about Sandusky. (And don't tell me he wasn't allowed to even ask - that's horseshit). And if they didn't do enough, he should have threatened to go public.

Seriously.

 

[Obliviax]

No, it isn't. Paterno could have done more, based on the available evidence. He may have been involved in the decision to do less than should have been done back then, based on the available evidence.

He is far less to blame than CSS, again, based on the available evidence, but that does not mean he did "nothing wrong and that's a fact".

You are incorrect. Could and may are not should.

JS was not an employee. Lasch is not owned by Paterno or even PSU football. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, turn it over to those responsible. There was nothing else he could do. If he inquired, anyone answering that inquiry would have been breaking the law in terms of confidentiality to ongoing investigations. He did, in fact, according to MM, follow up with him on more than one occasion. MM said Joe asked him if everything was OK regarding his report. and MM always told him yes. That is on the record.

So I have no idea what fantasy world you live in...but those are the legal facts of the case.

 

[simons96]

You are incorrect. Could and may are not should.

JS was not an employee. Lasch is not owned by Paterno or even PSU football. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, turn it over to those responsible. There was nothing else he could do. If he inquired, anyone answering that inquiry would have been breaking the law in terms of confidentiality to ongoing investigations. He did, in fact, according to MM, follow up with him on more than one occasion. MM said Joe asked him if everything was OK regarding his report. and MM always told him yes. That is on the record.

So I have no idea what fantasy world you live in...but those are the legal facts of the case.

you're missing the obvious . . . Joe was SO WRONG in how he handled MM's report that the NCAA subsequently adopted that process as their official reporting procedures.

 

[Zenophile]

Joe should have pressed CSS to explain what they actually did about Sandusky. (And don't tell me he wasn't allowed to even ask - that's horseshit). And if they didn't do enough, he should have threatened to go public.

Seriously.

This is what is known as the hindsight bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

 

[mdahmus]

You are incorrect. Could and may are not should.

JS was not an employee. Lasch is not owned by Paterno or even PSU football. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, turn it over to those responsible. There was nothing else he could do. If he inquired, anyone answering that inquiry would have been breaking the law in terms of confidentiality to ongoing investigations. He did, in fact, according to MM, follow up with him on more than one occasion. MM said Joe asked him if everything was OK regarding his report. and MM always told him yes. That is on the record.

So I have no idea what fantasy world you live in...but those are the legal facts of the case.

The real world I live in is one where Joe Paterno was not a mailroom clerk; not an adjunct professor; etc. He was the titular head of a billion+ dollar enterprise and had some responsibility to make sure things were handled.

Many have made the (complete horseshit) claim that he couldn't even ask how things were handled. He could have.

Many have said (including you, just now) that he asked MM if everything was OK regarding his report. This is disingenuous and misleading. According to MM, Joe asked him how he was doing, but specifically NOT about how he felt about how the report was handled.

 

[simons96]

This is what is known as the hindsight bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

hindsight bias and confirmation bias have absolutely ruled this scandal from Day 1

 

[bamasota]

You are incorrect. Could and may are not should.

JS was not an employee. Lasch is not owned by Paterno or even PSU football. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, turn it over to those responsible. There was nothing else he could do. If he inquired, anyone answering that inquiry would have been breaking the law in terms of confidentiality to ongoing investigations. He did, in fact, according to MM, follow up with him on more than one occasion. MM said Joe asked him if everything was OK regarding his report. and MM always told him yes. That is on the record.

So I have no idea what fantasy world you live in...but those are the legal facts of the case.

What would prevent him from serving the BOT with an ultimatum? "Either you revoke JS access or I will resign". If they favored JS, he resigns and it is big news. MSM asks "Joe, why did you resign?" He answers with "Let me tell you a story..."

Joe becomes a hero for putting honor, integrity and loyalty to the university's reputation before money and all-time win record. BOT without a doubt becomes the scapegoat.

Don't see anything against the law about that.

 

[Zenophile]

What would prevent him from serving the BOT with an ultimatum? "Either you revoke JS access or I will resign". If they favored JS, he resigns and it is big news. MSM asks "Joe, why did you resign?" He answers with "Let me tell you a story..."

Joe becomes a hero for putting honor, integrity and loyalty to the university's reputation before money and all-time win record. BOT without a doubt becomes the scapegoat.

Don't see anything against the law about that.

Again, hindsight bias.

 

[WeR0206]

Joe should have pressed CSS to explain what they actually did about Sandusky. (And don't tell me he wasn't allowed to even ask - that's horseshit). And if they didn't do enough, he should have threatened to go public.

Seriously.

Apparently you are oblivious to the FACT MM testified that when TC followed up with him via phone a few weeks after their initial meeting, MM expressed NO dissatisfaction, never said more needed to be done, and never said the police needed to be called.

So if/when Joe pressed CS to explain what they did, he would have been told that:
-they spoke to MM
-they spoke to JS and told him his behavior was wrong and needed to stop and he wasn't allowed to bring TSM kids onto campus anymore
-JR at TSM was told about the incident and PSU's new directives.
-Oh yeah and the one and only witness expressed ZERO dissatisfaction when they followed up with him.

Please do tell us why Joe or CS would think the incident wasn't handled properly when the one and only witness was satisfied??

 

[PSU Mike]

What would prevent him from serving the BOT with an ultimatum? "Either you revoke JS access or I will resign". If they favored JS, he resigns and it is big news. MSM asks "Joe, why did you resign?" He answers with "Let me tell you a story..."

Joe becomes a hero for putting honor, integrity and loyalty to the university's reputation before money and all-time win record. BOT without a doubt becomes the scapegoat.

Don't see anything against the law about that.

Your mother could have done more - like used birth control -- and saved me from all possibility of reading your asinine post.

 

[WeR0206]

What would prevent him from serving the BOT with an ultimatum? "Either you revoke JS access or I will resign". If they favored JS, he resigns and it is big news. MSM asks "Joe, why did you resign?" He answers with "Let me tell you a story..."

Joe becomes a hero for putting honor, integrity and loyalty to the university's reputation before money and all-time win record. BOT without a doubt becomes the scapegoat.

Don't see anything against the law about that.

Because Joe didn't have the information we have now to take such a strong stance. In 2001 JS was a pillar of the community who a GA saw taking an inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable. If Joe went public that he thought JS was a pedo based solely on MM's vague report, with ZERO proof, Joe would have been sued into oblivion for defamation, slander, etc.

MM didn't even feel strong enough about what he saw that night or what he THOUGHT was happening to make a written statement to UPPD for crying out loud!!

 

[bamasota]

Your mother could have done more - like used birth control -- and saved me from all possibility of reading your asinine post.

Please point out all of the untrue/falsehoods of this scenario.

The question has been posed several thousands of times here - "What more could Joe have done?" I provided an example of one course of action which he could have followed with the information he had at the time.

 

[lionlurker]

Joe should have pressed CSS to explain what they actually did about Sandusky. (And don't tell me he wasn't allowed to even ask - that's horseshit). And if they didn't do enough, he should have threatened to go public.

Seriously.

Well, hindsight is always 20/20. I will make a wild guess that if someone told you a similar story about a former employee about an incident that you didn't personally witness, that perhaps you wouldn't run right to the police and tell them about the hearsay. Because, really, nobody does that.

Do you really run to the boss at work every time you hear second-hand knowledge of something that should be reported instead by the people who actually witnessed it?

 

[mdahmus]

Please do tell us why Joe or CS would think the incident wasn't handled properly when the one and only witness was satisfied??

There is no evidence the one and only witness was satisfied. The only way you can claim so is to conflate "Joe asked MM how he was doing" (what MM says) with "Joe asked MM if he was OK with how it was handled", which MM never said happened (nor did Joe).

 

[Aoshiro]

Joe should have pressed CSS to explain what they actually did about Sandusky. (And don't tell me he wasn't allowed to even ask - that's horseshit). And if they didn't do enough, he should have threatened to go public.

Seriously.

Why on earth would he do that when the guy who made the report never complained once about how his report was handled? Maybe it was discovered that Jerry's shower pal was actually an adult. How would it be any of Joe's business?

 

[Aoshiro]

Do you really run to the boss at work every time you hear second-hand knowledge of something that should be reported instead by the people who actually witnessed it?

You're assuming that Mike is employed.

 

[Aoshiro]

Many have said (including you, just now) that he asked MM if everything was OK regarding his report. This is disingenuous and misleading. According to MM, Joe asked him how he was doing, but specifically NOT about how he felt about how the report was handled.

Well, if I made a report of an adult raping a child, and no one did a damn thing about it, I would certainly not say that I was doing "OK." But hey, that's just me. Maybe Mike lacks a conscience.

 

[simons96]

Well, hindsight is always 20/20. I will make a wild guess that if someone told you a similar story about a former employee about an incident that you didn't personally witness, that perhaps you wouldn't run right to the police and tell them about the hearsay. Because, really, nobody does that.

Do you really run to the boss at work every time you hear second-hand knowledge of something that should be reported instead by the people who actually witnessed it?

if we give credence to Clemente and the FBI crime stats, only 5% of actual WITNESSES to child abuse ever report it to the authorities.

 

[jjsocrates]

I absolutely agree. Though it is unlikely they would be commenting on BWI. It'd be a waste of time and resources to post here, were the sentiment is already very strongly pro-Paterno. They'd most likely be commenting on non-PSU sports sites, newspapers, and twitter, and they would likely be outsiders not affiliated with Penn State.

I do not believe the Paternos would be likely to do this (except for Scott... I could see him hiring a PR firm for astroturfing). But it could be done by the Paterno estate's legal team without the Paternos' knowledge.

But to your point, yes, mdahmus is absolutely right that it can cut both ways.

Its funny though, how all of the people posting under "anonymous" user names that nobody seems to know who they are - and that just pop up with the same tired arguments again and again - those are the ones that are all on the anti-Paterno side, while all the ones on the pro-Paterno side, I've gotten to know through various social media sites. The pro-Paterno posters here aren't hiding who they are.

 

[Obliviax]

The real world I live in is one where Joe Paterno was not a mailroom clerk; not an adjunct professor; etc. He was the titular head of a billion+ dollar enterprise and had some responsibility to make sure things were handled.

Many have made the (complete horseshit) claim that he couldn't even ask how things were handled. He could have.

Many have said (including you, just now) that he asked MM if everything was OK regarding his report. This is disingenuous and misleading. According to MM, Joe asked him how he was doing, but specifically NOT about how he felt about how the report was handled.

So you are suggesting that laws apply to some people and not to others? You are suggesting that there is no such things as "the rule of laws?" Are you also suggesting that had he "done something" and gotten no positive results, you'd be hammering him for being involved?

BTW, he did ask how things were being handled when he asked MM if everything was OK.

So you claims are complete and total horseshit and I think you know that.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

Its funny though, how all of the people posting under "anonymous" user names that nobody seems to know who they are - and that just pop up with the same tired arguments again and again - those are the ones that are all on the anti-Paterno side, while all the ones on the pro-Paterno side, I've gotten to know through various social media sites. The pro-Paterno posters here aren't hiding who they are.

In mdahmus' defense, he hasn't ever tried to remain anonymous. I don't think highly of him, but I will give him that. He's always put his name out there.

 

[WeR0206]

There is no evidence the one and only witness was satisfied. The only way you can claim so is to conflate "Joe asked MM how he was doing" (what MM says) with "Joe asked MM if he was OK with how it was handled", which MM never said happened (nor did Joe).

Yes there is, there is MM's testimony under oath at the 12/16/11 prelim, you know, the part I summarized at the top of my post which you conveniently cut out of your quote?? The first part of my post, that you cut off, had nothing to do with Joe asking MM how he was doing, it was based purely on MM's 12/16/11 testimony about TC's follow up call with him, nice straw man though...

Here it is again, just in case you're still disputing it:

Pg. 85 of 12/16/11 Prelim: MM never once saw JS around the program with a child since the 2001 incident. Also, when TC followed up with MM by telephone to tell him this is what we've done and what we've decided to do, MM did NOT dispute or oppose or say that they needed to do more.

**Chew on that for a few minutes. Apparently the state/freeh/NCAA/etc. is claiming that C/S should have somehow done more even though the one and only witness was fine with their course of action…truly unreal.**

 

[bamasota]

In mdahmus' defense, he hasn't ever tried to remain anonymous. I don't think highly of him, but I will give him that. He's always put his name out there.

Please keep that info to yourself. Some of us have invested heavily in tinfoil futures.

 

[94LionsFan]

There is no evidence the one and only witness was satisfied. The only way you can claim so is to conflate "Joe asked MM how he was doing" (what MM says) with "Joe asked MM if he was OK with how it was handled", which MM never said happened (nor did Joe).

That's a distinction without a difference. Joe went to him on multiple occasions and broached the subject again.

Let's say MM was dissatisfied with how the admins handled the situation. After all, he says he's 99.99% sure he saw JS engaged in some sort of intercourse with the boy. Is it your contention that it would be perfectly logical for MM to tell Joe he was doing OK with what he saw? That he wouldn't have thought to say something about Curley and Schultz's handling of his report at that point? That's absurd.

 

[ApexLion]

So, you say there is an email where the NCAA basically tells Freeh what to write? Wow, that is quite a smoking gun. Is there a copy of that somewhere link perhaps?

Well, Aoshiro said the suit would claim that Joe was denied his rights under NCAA bylaws and I was wondering what those rights were since the wins IIRC belong to the school and not just Joe. Did they suspend Joe from future jobs? Did they sanction him personally?

When you say concern for the kids, wasn't Freeh's charge to find out who knew what about the scandal at PSU (not the Second Mile, DPW etc) and when they knew it? I thought his charge was to find out whether somebody at PSU screwed up. Why did these BOT members hate the football program and Paterno who brought great benefit to the school. Did they think Paterno was too powerful. Did he ignore them or piss them off by not retiring? I don't get why they would deliberately just trash their own school for no reason. What was the naute of the hate?

We are asking the same questions of our BOT. In fact, Judge Covey asked the same thing. Why pay millions to trash your own organization? We don't know. That's why the fight continues. Who the hell hires Lanny Davis to beat the hell out of their own organization? Who goes on a media tour to trash their own organization? Nobody. Except our BOT. All along the alums have smelled something and it has nothing to do with the narrative that was paid for and distributed as fast as possible. The fear is that its more than Sandusky. Have you ever heard of an organization lining up PR firms as fast as possible, creating a phony report, paying out 150-200 million, trashing the organization's reputation and publically beheading their legendary figure, their symbol on tv? No? Didn't think so.

There's more information.

 

[simons96]

We are asking the same questions of our BOT. In fact, Judge Covey asked the same thing. Why pay millions to trash your own organization? We don't know. That's why the fight continues. Who the hell hires Lanny Davis to beat the hell out of their own organization? Who goes on a media tour to trash their own organization? Nobody. Except our BOT. All along the alums have smelled something and it has nothing to do with the narrative that was paid for and distributed as fast as possible. The fear is that its more than Sandusky. Have you ever heard of an organization lining up PR firms as fast as possible, creating a phony report, paying out 150-200 million, trashing the organization's reputation and publically beheading their legendary figure, their symbol on tv? No? Didn't think so.

There's more information.

I'll put this in a manner Rentech can easily understand. We saw how the FSU administration stood by Jimbo and Jameis.

imagine when the rape allegation came to light, if a powerful group leading the BoT of Florida State commissioned a report that said Jimbo knew about the rape and covered it up to protect the football program. A report where they cited anonymous interviews that threw Jimbo under the bus, and then said no other trustees could read those interviews, or see where those claims came from.

You'd probably be a little pissed, and more than a little suspicious. Multiply that by 61. then by 409.

and that is about half of the outrage we currently feel.

 

[RentechCEO]

I'll put this in a manner Renetech can easily understand. We saw how the FSU administration stood by Jimbo and Jameis.

imagine when the rape allegation came to light, if a powerful group leading the BoT of Florida State commissioned a report that said Jimbo knew about the rape and covered it up to protect the football program. A report where they cited anonymous interviews that threw Jimbo under the bus, and then said no other trustees could read those interviews, or see where those claims came from.

You'd probably be a little pissed, and more than a little suspicious. Multiply that by 61. then by 409.

and that is about half of the outrage we currently feel.

No I get your outrage and see it from other JoePa fans throughout the internet believe me. As to the anonymous interviews, that outrage is why I think they want confidentiality. I think if names get out about people saying unkind things about football, Curley, JoePa etc, then those folks would catch a lot of hell from JoePa supporters. Some of them probably live in SC and work at PSU. From my following this I think some of your alumni trustees would do just that IMO and release their names and what they said. Therefore I can understand why the admin would want them to sign NDAs. I say this not to troll but I read a lot on here and I see a lot of anger from some and I think that would sacre some folks who thought their interviews were confidential.

However, reading the other posts the motives of the BOT to trash the school and JoePa don't add up to me. What it appears to be to me is that they reacted and weren't ready for the onslaught from the media. You can argue that they should have been more prepared since that article was published in March and I think one of the Trustees (Garban) knew about the indictments two weeks before (but the presentment was leaked early) and so their unpreparedness was not excused. I think allowing Paterno to coach on the sidelines would have been too much but I bet if they had gone to him he would have stepped down himself. So, they did screw that up but I think more to their laxness and lack of engagment than evil intent that I see proof of.

Oh well, thanks for the insight.

 

[simons96]

No I get your outrage and see it from other JoePa fans throughout the internet believe me. As to the anonymous interviews, that outrage is why I think they want confidentiality. I think if names get out about people saying unkind things about football, Curley, JoePa etc, then those folks would catch a lot of hell from JoePa supporters. Some of them probably live in SC and work at PSU. From my following this I think some of your alumni trustees would do just that IMO and release their names and what they said. Therefore I can understand why the admin would want them to sign NDAs. I say this not to troll but I read a lot on here and I see a lot of anger from some and I think that would sacre some folks who thought their interviews were confidential.

However, reading the other posts the motives of the BOT to trash the school and JoePa don't add up to me. What it appears to be to me is that they reacted and weren't ready for the onslaught from the media. You can argue that they should have been more prepared since that article was published in March and I think one of the Trustees (Garban) knew about the indictments two weeks before (but the presentment was leaked early) and so their unpreparedness was not excused. I think allowing Paterno to coach on the sidelines would have been too much but I bet if they had gone to him he would have stepped down himself. So, they did screw that up but I think more to their laxness and lack of engagment than evil intent that I see proof of.

Oh well, thanks for the insight.

no problem man, thanks for coming here with an open mind.

I don't think the alumni trustees would reveal the names of employees. because I don't think any employees said anything bad. we've heard lots of stories of employees being browbeaten by Freeh investigators, threatened and intimidated, but I think the only people who spoke ill of Paterno were current trustees and one former employee (Vicky Triponey).

but to elaborate on your last few sentences . . . I think it was well established that Spanier met with 4 trustees (including Garban) to discuss the March 2011 news item that Sandusky was being investigated. I fervently believe there were several trustees who were well aware of what was coming down the pipe months in advance. They fooled few alumni by acting shocked and surprised in November 2011 with the charges against Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz.

 

[colt21]

No, it isn't. Paterno could have done more, based on the available evidence. He may have been involved in the decision to do less than should have been done back then, based on the available evidence.

He is far less to blame than CSS, again, based on the available evidence, but that does not mean he did "nothing wrong and that's a fact".

Dude - I work for a PA non profit in HR and Compliance. Know DPW well and out ED knows personally the person who did the initial investigation. I can tell you with 1000% accuracy and confidence that Joe Paterno did EXACTLY what he should have then and now by every measure.

It was a lynching plain and simple fueled by some very powerful and evil person(s) petty personal and political jealousies

That is what is so sad-people of power took a tragic situation and used it for personal reasons .... Why? .....cause they could.

 

[91Joe95]

jeez Tom, nice nitpicking.

Nitpick back. The bot actually officially fired Paterno a couple of weeks later in a second vote because they didn't follow the proper procedures during the first vote.

 

[91Joe95]

No, it isn't. Paterno could have done more, based on the available evidence. He may have been involved in the decision to do less than should have been done back then, based on the available evidence.

He is far less to blame than CSS, again, based on the available evidence, but that does not mean he did "nothing wrong and that's a fact".

You're wrong. The only real question is if it is deliberate or not. Evidence to date says deliberate.

 

[91Joe95]

Joe should have pressed CSS to explain what they actually did about Sandusky. (And don't tell me he wasn't allowed to even ask - that's horseshit). And if they didn't do enough, he should have threatened to go public.

Seriously.

You're dumb.

 

[91Joe95]

No I get your outrage and see it from other JoePa fans throughout the internet believe me. As to the anonymous interviews, that outrage is why I think they want confidentiality. I think if names get out about people saying unkind things about football, Curley, JoePa etc, then those folks would catch a lot of hell from JoePa supporters. Some of them probably live in SC and work at PSU. From my following this I think some of your alumni trustees would do just that IMO and release their names and what they said. Therefore I can understand why the admin would want them to sign NDAs. I say this not to troll but I read a lot on here and I see a lot of anger from some and I think that would sacre some folks who thought their interviews were confidential.

However, reading the other posts the motives of the BOT to trash the school and JoePa don't add up to me. What it appears to be to me is that they reacted and weren't ready for the onslaught from the media. You can argue that they should have been more prepared since that article was published in March and I think one of the Trustees (Garban) knew about the indictments two weeks before (but the presentment was leaked early) and so their unpreparedness was not excused. I think allowing Paterno to coach on the sidelines would have been too much but I bet if they had gone to him he would have stepped down himself. So, they did screw that up but I think more to their laxness and lack of engagment than evil intent that I see proof of.

Oh well, thanks for the insight.

The biggest credibility problem for the bot is not their immediate actions, which were atrocious (leaking plans to fire Paterno to the nyt and media), but their subsequent actions that destroy any credibility of merely being caught off guard.

 

[simons96]

Nitpick back. The bot actually officially fired Paterno a couple of weeks later in a second vote because they didn't follow the proper procedures during the first vote.

they didn't fire Joe, they retired him 3 weeks early.

and to nitpick back even further, they didn't follow the proper procedures the second time around, either.

 

[LundyPSU]

Joe should have pressed CSS to explain what they actually did about Sandusky. (And don't tell me he wasn't allowed to even ask - that's horseshit). And if they didn't do enough, he should have threatened to go public.

Seriously.

What if JVP was told by Curley that it was being reported to DPW? Based on the 2001 emails, that was the plan when Curley met with JVP. Seems like a reasonable conclusion that JVP was told it was reported.

 

[Zenophile]

We are asking the same questions of our BOT. In fact, Judge Covey asked the same thing. Why pay millions to trash your own organization? We don't know. That's why the fight continues. Who the hell hires Lanny Davis to beat the hell out of their own organization? Who goes on a media tour to trash their own organization? Nobody. Except our BOT. All along the alums have smelled something and it has nothing to do with the narrative that was paid for and distributed as fast as possible. The fear is that its more than Sandusky. Have you ever heard of an organization lining up PR firms as fast as possible, creating a phony report, paying out 150-200 million, trashing the organization's reputation and publically beheading their legendary figure, their symbol on tv? No? Didn't think so.

There's more information.

Preach it.

 

[mbahses]

Dear BoT ...we're coming for yah, darlin'....

 

[Zenophile]

In fact, it's just as likely ... that the Paternos or CSS have hired commenters as that the BOT have.

Yup. And I could bring sand on my trips to the beach.