So let me get this straight. For those of you who believe the allegations against Joe Paterno.
- Thread starter bplionfan
- Start date
The evidence for good is 61 years of service and not one NCAA infraction. How bout that?
bwifan
Well-Known Member
OK you said you are observing. What exactly are you observing the Joe did or did not do?
Just because I don't 100% agree with all the Paterno backers doesn't mean anything really. I think he could have handled the situation much differently/swiftly than he did. That's what I think he did wrong. Just one man's opinion. No disrespect
Excellent post. It should pinned to the top.
Isn't it interesting that Joe was quick to suspend some of his top players when they didn't go to class, did poorly in school, or got into trouble. But he fought hard to keep JS eligible for 40 years. Doesn't make much sense, does it? It makes about as much sense as his apparent control over players, assistant coaches, athletic directors, campus police, child protection professionals, etc.
Did you even read the original post? It explains it well.. My question is, why are so many so sure he didn't do anything wrong? And it's not like they're questioning a mistake, they're blatantly calling him a child rapist enabler and basing it on nothing substantial and totally unwilling to listen to the other side.
I assume like any rational person, you think these claims from the 70s are a pure fairytale and want to focus on 2001. What exactly do you think he should have done differently? Remember, he was told a watered down version of potential abuse the next day. He followed University policy, state law, and current NCAA guidelines. Also remember that you have remove your hindsight bias in your response.
That's OK Turk. I also think that Joe could have pursued this a little more aggressively. I think he underestimated the severity of what MM told him and he should have done more to follow up with C&S. But that's not the allegation. The allegation is that he knowingly allowed Sandusky to molest children for over 4 decades and he conspired with generations of coaches, administrators, and public officials to keep things quiet.
Unfortunately that's the narrative. The media doesn't question why the police and DPW failed in 1998. They don't even mention guilt among TSM leadership. Schiano, Ganter, and Bradley were mentioned briefly but that will fade quickly. The media sells stories by making this all about Joe Paterno.
Penn State has only itself to blame for latest accusations
Dan Wetzel
Yahoo Sports columnist
Jul 12, 2016, 9:55 PM
The accusations – and headlines that followed – are as disturbing as they are unproven, somehow both expected and shocking at the same time. Still, they are based on 40-year-old quotes assigned to Joe Paterno and former Penn State assistants done in by second-degree hearsay, fresh outrage arriving without investigation or examination.
It results in another round of contempt heaped on everyone with any involvement in Jerry Sandusky’s reign of terror. As victims, and Penn State sure does consider itself the victim, it isn’t sympathetic.
That is especially true since the school created this news cycle by refusing to open its own checkbook and dole out a reported $92.8 million in settlements it authorized to Sandusky’s actual victims. Instead it tried to pawn the settlement off on its insurance company, which promptly balked, sued (and won), stating Penn State knew of Sandusky’s acts, thereby voiding the policy. Along the way, came a mud fight that won’t end.
Joe Paterno is front and center on Tuesday, as released court documents detail an allegation from a child victim called “John Doe 150” with whom Penn State settled. He claims he attended the school’s football camp in 1976 and wound up in a shower with Sandusky. John Doe 150 said Sandusky ran his hand down his back before digitally penetrating his rectum. The boy cried out. He claims other coaches and campers heard, but nothing was done.
The next day, John Doe 150 testified, he told Paterno what happened and found the coach was dismissive and unconcerned. “I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about,” he testified.
“I was shocked, disappointed, offended,” John Doe 150 said. “I was insulted. … I said, ‘Is that all you’re going to do? You’re not going to do anything else?’ ” He said Paterno walked away.
Ugly story. Is it a true story? John Doe 150 testified under oath, and there’s a full measure of support that any victim deserves. However no one other than he has any idea. This is merely an allegation in a civil suit that was settled without further challenge.
So, yes, it’s possible, and, yes, Penn State chose not to question it, so that’s on the school. It’s also fair to ask if a kid camper could really gain a private audience with Paterno, heroically make the aforementioned claim, grow outraged at the response, boldly and aggressively question Paterno’s response, all via quotes that feel directly out of a movie. He did all of that, but didn’t go to his parents, the police or anyone else for nearly four decades?
Systems of justice have to be rooted in fairness and, ideally, that includes the court of public opinion. Questioning allegations isn’t a sign of disrespect but an important part of the legitimizing process. It’s the only way this works, even if that means extending a courtesy to the most loathsome among us.
A naïve hope? Certainly. It’s never really worked that proper way, not with the public in general, let alone the media, traditional or social. That’s why even if Tuesday’s allegations should have been taken with appropriate suspicion, they weren’t. Penn State knew as much, which is at least partially why it settled the case originally.
It also illustrates the recklessness of the school when it tried to pass the victim payout bill to its insurer. Yes, $92.8 million is a lot of money, but Penn State has a $4.6 billion operating budget and a $3.64 billion endowment.
It was Penn State that decided to pay these claims. Besides, how much would the school pay to avoid days such as Tuesday?
Paterno was just one name that popped up, some with even more questionable allegations. How about former assistant Kevin O’Dea, who was alleged to have witnessed an act of molestation by Sandusky in what a court document stated was 1988. The problem? O’Dea worked at the University of Virginia at the time and didn’t arrive in State College until 1991.
Dan Wetzel
Yahoo Sports columnist
Jul 12, 2016, 9:55 PM
The accusations – and headlines that followed – are as disturbing as they are unproven, somehow both expected and shocking at the same time. Still, they are based on 40-year-old quotes assigned to Joe Paterno and former Penn State assistants done in by second-degree hearsay, fresh outrage arriving without investigation or examination.
It results in another round of contempt heaped on everyone with any involvement in Jerry Sandusky’s reign of terror. As victims, and Penn State sure does consider itself the victim, it isn’t sympathetic.
That is especially true since the school created this news cycle by refusing to open its own checkbook and dole out a reported $92.8 million in settlements it authorized to Sandusky’s actual victims. Instead it tried to pawn the settlement off on its insurance company, which promptly balked, sued (and won), stating Penn State knew of Sandusky’s acts, thereby voiding the policy. Along the way, came a mud fight that won’t end.
Joe Paterno is front and center on Tuesday, as released court documents detail an allegation from a child victim called “John Doe 150” with whom Penn State settled. He claims he attended the school’s football camp in 1976 and wound up in a shower with Sandusky. John Doe 150 said Sandusky ran his hand down his back before digitally penetrating his rectum. The boy cried out. He claims other coaches and campers heard, but nothing was done.
The next day, John Doe 150 testified, he told Paterno what happened and found the coach was dismissive and unconcerned. “I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about,” he testified.
“I was shocked, disappointed, offended,” John Doe 150 said. “I was insulted. … I said, ‘Is that all you’re going to do? You’re not going to do anything else?’ ” He said Paterno walked away.
Ugly story. Is it a true story? John Doe 150 testified under oath, and there’s a full measure of support that any victim deserves. However no one other than he has any idea. This is merely an allegation in a civil suit that was settled without further challenge.
So, yes, it’s possible, and, yes, Penn State chose not to question it, so that’s on the school. It’s also fair to ask if a kid camper could really gain a private audience with Paterno, heroically make the aforementioned claim, grow outraged at the response, boldly and aggressively question Paterno’s response, all via quotes that feel directly out of a movie. He did all of that, but didn’t go to his parents, the police or anyone else for nearly four decades?
Systems of justice have to be rooted in fairness and, ideally, that includes the court of public opinion. Questioning allegations isn’t a sign of disrespect but an important part of the legitimizing process. It’s the only way this works, even if that means extending a courtesy to the most loathsome among us.
A naïve hope? Certainly. It’s never really worked that proper way, not with the public in general, let alone the media, traditional or social. That’s why even if Tuesday’s allegations should have been taken with appropriate suspicion, they weren’t. Penn State knew as much, which is at least partially why it settled the case originally.
It also illustrates the recklessness of the school when it tried to pass the victim payout bill to its insurer. Yes, $92.8 million is a lot of money, but Penn State has a $4.6 billion operating budget and a $3.64 billion endowment.
It was Penn State that decided to pay these claims. Besides, how much would the school pay to avoid days such as Tuesday?
Paterno was just one name that popped up, some with even more questionable allegations. How about former assistant Kevin O’Dea, who was alleged to have witnessed an act of molestation by Sandusky in what a court document stated was 1988. The problem? O’Dea worked at the University of Virginia at the time and didn’t arrive in State College until 1991.
If you reported something to your boss that your coworker across the aisle told you about, is it really any of your business to go to your boss and ask what he did with that report? A report that you, yourself didn't see?
Have you ever heard of HR laws? It's none of your fkng business. It's not your job to handle that. You're not trained to handle that. If you're hired by Penn State to coach football, that's what you do. The only reason Joe was viewed as the almighty is because people, like the media, put him there. You think the man wanted that title? I highly doubt it.
This is why this country has laws and companies have policies. Otherwise everything would be one big free for all.
No one has ever said that Paterno did something criminally wrong. It is believed by most (not including PSU fans) that he was morally wrong.
He is being faulted for telling Curley, etc about MM's allegations and then washing his hands of the matter. Joe was the big fish at PSU and it is believed if he had confronted
Curley about the lack of action, Sandusky probably would have been stopped in 2001. Now more stories are coming out about Sandusky's activities and that Paterno turned a blind
eye. We may never know for sure if any are true, but Paterno was already convicted in the court of public opinion in 2011 and any new stories are only validating that verdict to
those outside of this board. I know this is something most of you don't want to hear and I expect it to be deleted soon. I know many are upset because they believe the public
is only getting one side of the story. However none of you seem willing to acknowledge dissenting opinions and this message will be met with derision
and name calling instead of discussion.
He is the typical person...
There is a new study by computer scientists at Columbia University and the French National Institute that has found that 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, meaning that most people who share news on social media aren’t actually reading it first.
For the study, Arnaud Legout and co-authors collected two data sets:
the first, on all tweets containing Bit.ly-shortened links to five major news sources during a one-month period last summer; the second, on all of the clicks attached to that set of shortened links, as logged by Bit.ly, during the same period. After cleaning and collating that data, the researchers basically found themselves with a map to how news goes viral on Twitter.
The map showed “viral” news is widely shared but not necessarily read.
According to the Washington Post, one thing study authors say is concerning about this is that it shapes the way we see the world.
Legout said in a statement:
“People are more willing to share an article than read it. This is typical of modern information consumption. People form an opinion based on a summary, or a summary of summaries, without making the effort to go deeper.”
This probably won’t shock most people. We see it all the time in comments sections – people making loud proclamations about stories they clearly haven’t read. Entire discussions are chaired by those who didn’t actually RTFA (Read the ****ing Article). It’s maddening.
What can you do about it?
RTFA, of course, and don’t share things you haven’t read. Being informed is being responsible.
You're talking out both sides of your mouth. First you say you're not here to say Joe did anything wrong then follow up by saying it looks like he did. Then you say you're not accusing anyone and simply observing but follow that gem by saying there's no evidence which is good for Joe. As others have requested, please tell us about this evidence.
After those circular posts you say you've been observing and don't pretend to know anything that actually happened yet go on to say you think Joe handled things wrong. Your acknowledgement of not knowing the facts makes your posts on the subject a joke. Sadly, your logic free thought process is shared by a vast majority of people.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
FYI Tom has asked all of us not to reply to the troll posts and simply report the post. Just ignore it he will be banned shortly and the post deleted. This keeps their posts off the page rather than highlighted in your post.
Your post is wrong in so many ways. yes, they are saying he did something criminally wrong. They are saying he actively participated in a cover up, did not report a molestation and endangered children. All of these are crimes.
They are saying the only reason why he was not indicted is because he died. I am not sure what you are reading but God help you if your reading is that bad.
Fact is, Joe reported it, just as he should have according to NCAA guidelines. Second, Joe was supposed to then get the hell out of the way (lest interfere with an ongoing investigation). Third, Joe followed up with MM and MM said he was fine. These are all facts.
Wrong! Joe has been accused of knowingly allowing JS to sexually abuse children for over 40 years. He has even been accused of convincing Curley to deal directly with JS rather than reporting things to the police or child welfare agencies. He has been accused of doing this because he put football over child welfare.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
My thoughts exactly Obli.... Not sure what he is reading but the entire media from print to social is saying he is a criminal. His post couldn't be more off base.
I wish there was a means by which we could do a geographical twitter dump via a key word search. I would wager that the vast majority of incendiary, irrational comments about Joe and Penn State would come from one of two areas/fan bases: Pittsburgh and Big Ten. It would just reinforce the assertion that these people are disingenuous, and their disdain has nothing to do with a moral issue. It is simply a hatred of Joe Paterno and Penn State because there always a feeling that Joe and Penn State were condescending and self-righteous. And this gives these people an opportunity to "settle the score." Heck, you have to believe that is why Desmond Howard and Joey Galloway are so close-minded about it on our favorite 4-letter.
Sixty-one years of exemplary behavior. He kept starters from playing in bowl games because they were skipping classes or weren't making good grades. So that right there blows the win-at-all cost theory.
The guy would tell professors to walk on the sidewalk and not take a shortcut and walk on the grass. The man was about doing things right, always, with no shortcuts. Other programs elsewhere were paying kids to go there, giving them gifts, having them take cake classes, just for the sake of wins. Joe was none of that. Someone like that doesn't break the law and most certainly protect someone who does, especially a pedophile.
Do you have a link to anyone in authority accusing or even suggesting that Paterno committed a crime and would have been indicted? I think not.
Joe following up with MM was not in my message. Those are your words. I said confronting Curley about the lack of action.
Not trolling or talking out both sides of my mouth. I think Joe Paterno could have handled it better, thats all. I don't think he intentionally allowed Sandusky to do what he did.
Bernstein: Joe Paterno Abetted Child Rape
July 12, 2016 3:12 PMBy Dan Bernstein
CBS Sports
http://sports.cbslocal.com/2016/07/12/bernstein-joe-paterno-abetted-child-rape/
On Curley, it wasn't Joe's place to "confront Curley". As per NCAA regulations, he'd have been in violation of said regulations.
I think you know that I'm a huge supporter of Joe Paterno. I think that it was incredibly wrong for PSU to fire him by phone long before any investigation took place. There is no way that I think Joe intentionally covered up JS's crimes.
I also understand that it would have been wrong to interfere with any university investigations. But I do think that Joe should have gone back and asked Curley "Hey Tim, has this issue been dealt with properly?" "Are we OK here?" "Is there anything more you need from me?" "Can I close the file on this?" I don't consider that type of follow up to be a violation of the law or PSU policies.
But it really doesn't matter because that's not why Joe was fired and it's not why the media is faulting Joe today. They are accusing him of covering up JS's crimes in order to protect football. That makes no rational sense but that's the media narrative. The media isn't going after MM's dad, Dranov, TSM, DPW, Police, AG, etc. They are going after Joe because that's the only way they can sell their stories.
So I'll ask again... What exactly do you think he should have done differently? Remember, he was told a watered down version of potential abuse the next day. He followed University policy, state law, and current NCAA guidelines. Also remember that you have remove your hindsight bias in your response.
WildTurk, your point of view is one that has been stated by many that have not followed the saga all that closely.
There is a poster in this forum that by virtue of their job is an expert on what should and should not be done when reports of abuse are made. He has done a very nice job of educating most of us about the process, and about what JoePa should have done.
Hopefully somebody else can link one of the aforementioned experts prior posts on the subject. I'm too busy dealing with trolls, flamers, etc. to search for these posts.
Since when is Bernstein in a position of authority? He is just giving his opinion. "It wasn't his place"? Who's place was it? You can't
seriously believe that if Paterno would have asked Curley what he was doing about the Sandusky situation since he had not been contacted
by the police nor heard of any investigation that he would have been in big trouble. Paterno obviously knew nothing was being done and therein
lies part of his reputation problem.
NCAA guidelines are to report it and get out of the way. Joe knew Curley and Schultz were on it. As he said, they have always been good men. Joe did follow up with MM who said everything was fine. These are facts.
LOL
Osprey is doing some serious "zwickering" (that is the new term for it......being an oblivious asshole)
This subject is tough for me to address considering the personal experiences I have with such matters. But for me I don't care if the guy is my best friend, I couldn't sleep at night knowing or wondering if such accusations were true or not. I would address it quickly without hesitation. No mercy for the lowest scum of the earth. I don't think that was the case with Joe Pa. JMO
I understand where you are coming from. I know it's a sensitive subject. Trust me. Just a different viewpoint
If you look at the headline the guy goes wayyyy out of his way to tar and feather. He writes it as if he was the first to get the scoop. If anyone has skeletons it's him.
about 4 names come to mind and to me, based on their tireless efforts, all seem to be experts in this. Who are you referring to specifically?
So do you assume that Joe and JS were friends? Nothing could be further from the truth, and that is well documented. Joe did exactly what you propose he should have done, addressed it quickly without hesitation.
I asked you to remove your hindsight bias. At that time, Joe did not know he was the lowest scum on the earth.
We already know the answer, it is simply you should do EXACTLY what Joe did.
Last edited:
Similar threads
