http://www.dailylocal.com/sports/20...-legacies-and-his-followers-need-to-accept-it
This was posted earlier but I'm posting again for those who didn't see it. I was particularly disappointed with these two comments:
"The only conceivable reason I can think of for this blatant inaction is that he was trying to protect something. In this case it wasn’t Sandusky he was protecting, it was himself — it was his precious legacy."
"His ousting was completely justified. It wasn’t a rash decision. It was the only decision."
I sent Hundell an e-mail and told him that I thought he was wrong. I told him that he assumed that Joe clearly understood that JS was sexually abusing boys and that was an unfair assumption. I also told him that the BOT's decision was not the only decision. What about allowing Joe to speak in his own defense? What about suspending him pending an investigation?
Hundell responded that I defend Paterno because I loved him. He said "There were emails proving he knew but didn't want to pursue" and that "If your child were one of Sandusky's victims you would be asking the same questions I did". I told him that he must be referring to the Curley e-mail and that there is nothing in there saying that Joe didn't want to pursue. I also told him that I think Jay's kids continued to play at the Sandusky house. Why would Joe allow that if he understood?
Hundell was pleasant and responsive but his mind is made up. He thinks we're all blinded by our loyalty to Joe. And so it goes.
This was posted earlier but I'm posting again for those who didn't see it. I was particularly disappointed with these two comments:
"The only conceivable reason I can think of for this blatant inaction is that he was trying to protect something. In this case it wasn’t Sandusky he was protecting, it was himself — it was his precious legacy."
"His ousting was completely justified. It wasn’t a rash decision. It was the only decision."
I sent Hundell an e-mail and told him that I thought he was wrong. I told him that he assumed that Joe clearly understood that JS was sexually abusing boys and that was an unfair assumption. I also told him that the BOT's decision was not the only decision. What about allowing Joe to speak in his own defense? What about suspending him pending an investigation?
Hundell responded that I defend Paterno because I loved him. He said "There were emails proving he knew but didn't want to pursue" and that "If your child were one of Sandusky's victims you would be asking the same questions I did". I told him that he must be referring to the Curley e-mail and that there is nothing in there saying that Joe didn't want to pursue. I also told him that I think Jay's kids continued to play at the Sandusky house. Why would Joe allow that if he understood?
Hundell was pleasant and responsive but his mind is made up. He thinks we're all blinded by our loyalty to Joe. And so it goes.