Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

Desperate times call for desperate measures...In the past two days, I think they got it correct...

Opinions may vary...

I say we put you in charge of it... ;)

Opinions may vary...

So what about the Extra Mile or whatever it is, Shut down ?? Or at least change the name of it. I still say instead of leaving him rot in jail & getting taken care of by the taxpayer that his ass ought to be taken into a room with a drain & shot in the head & be done with it.

In the context of historical punishments - this decision was an epic fail.

In my mind - they either got the SMU decision very wrong or this one. no way both can be right.

There's a race coming up in Iowa? lol

How much would could a wouldchuck chuck if a 
wouldchuck could chuck would

See if future lack of alumni donations and settling out of court with the victims bankrupts them. It never should have went on in the football building. Cover up doesn't cover it. They whacked the original DA who tried to prosecute Sandusky.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sandusky-investigator-center-mystery/story?id=14905668

 
 
 
They don't even know how to spell sprint car 
much less chromoly...http://www.ycmco.com

I don't know how much you guys from outside PA have been following the details of the scandal beyond the national headlines., but one thing that really gave me pause last week was a New York Daily News article that linked Ed Savitiz to the Second Mile. From those outside PA, Savitiz was a notorious Philadelphia pedophile whose depravity was big news on the Philadelphia television stations in the mid 1980s. I am now wondering again whether or not the Second Mile really was a front for a larger pedophile ring, It just seems like almost too big a coincidence that one of Philadelphia's most notorious pedophiles also helped raise money for a charity founded by another serial pedophile.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-17/news/32701763_1_second-mile-jerry-sandusky-barnaby-wittels

For those outside the state who want to start on the DA disappearing and linking that to this you may not know that he was investigating a major drug ring when he disappeared.We all know that the fine upstanding people involved in that business would never make anyone disappear don't we. Anything is possible but there were other things going on at the same time.

Penn State got screwed by plain and simple by Freeh and Emmert; Sanduskied some might say, without even the courtesy of DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. Emmert also blackmailed PS president Erickson with threats of the death penalty if he fought it.

Most of the haters on here don't really know any of the facts. Nearly everyone that's actually read the Freeh report has been left scratching their heads. Oh well, hope you guys feel good about yourselves, Maybe you'll get lucky and your school will get a Penn

State transfer or recruit. Here is what one respected lawyer/prosecuter had to say after reading the Freeh report:

I believe the media, the Freeh Report, and many others have misrepresented Joe Paterno’s culpability in the Jerry Sandusky matter. The evidence against Mr. Paterno amounts to virtually nothing. After more than 430 interviews and a review of more than 3.5 million documents and other information, the Freeh Report concludes that three emails from other people – former Penn State President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and Senior Vice President Gary Schultz – prove that Mr. Paterno was a co-conspirator in a cover-up. I do not read the evidence in the Freeh Report that way, and I do not believe the conclusions about Mr. Paterno are either warranted or fair.

The claim seems to be that Mr. Paterno knew about a 1998 allegation and did nothing, and that in 2001, when he learned about Mike McQueary’s information, he waited a day before he reported the information to the athletic director (Curley) and the vice president in charge of the University Police (Schultz) and then did nothing else.

First, with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report says that several authorities promptly investigated and reviewed the matter, including the Department of Public Welfare, the University Police Department, the State College police, and the local district attorney’s office. Freeh Report at 42-47. A “counselor” named John Seasock issued a report that found “no indication of child abuse.” Freeh Report at 42-46. Mr. Seasock interviewed the alleged victim and determined that “there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children.” Freeh Report at 44 (quoting Mr. Seasock’s 1998 evaluation of the alleged victim). The Freeh Report adds that Mr. Seasock “couldn’t find any indication of child abuse.” Freeh Report at 45.

The police investigated and “did not question Sandusky at this time,” and the Freeh Report says that “the local District Attorney declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions.” Freeh Report at 45-46. A “senior administrator” explained that “the case against Sandusky was ‘severely hampered’ by Seasock’s report.” Freeh Report at 46. The University Police also investigatedthe matter and unlike the local police, they interviewed Sandusky. Sandusky claimed “nothing happened” (Freeh Report at 46) and the University Police concluded that “no sexual assault occurred.” Freeh Report at 47.

The only evidence of Mr. Paterno’s involvement is a passing reference in an email from Curley to Spanier and Schultz that says that Curley “touched base with the coach. Keep us posted.” Freeh Report at 20, 48. A second email from Curley to Schultz that says “Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Freeh Report at 20, 48. There is no other information about Mr. Paterno’s involvement in the incident. In fact, the Freeh Report does not even establish that the references to “Coach” refer to Joe Paterno. The most it can and does say is that “[t]he reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.” Freeh Report at 49. The Freeh Report cites no evidence to support this assertion, but even if “Coach” refers to Coach Paterno, what do these emails prove? The answer is: nothing. At most, these emails suggest that Mr. Paterno was concerned and wanted to know whether Sandusky was guilty of any wrongdoing.

Of course, if Mr. Paterno did express concern about the matter, then the question becomes: what did anyone tell him about the allegations and the investigation?

The Freeh Report provides no answer to this question. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 allegations against Sandusky. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Mr. Paterno did or said, or what anyone said to Mr. Paterno. Indeed, the Freeh Report suggests that both law enforcement and the University police agreed that nothing improper happened and that the allegations lacked merit. Did anyone tell Joe Paterno about those findings?

The Freeh Report concludes that the “record” is “not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno.” Freeh Report at 51. The Report includes many statements that assert things like “nothing in the record indicates that Joe Paterno spoke with Sandusky.” See, e.g., Freeh Report at 51. The absence of evidence or information proves only that Mr. Freeh did not find evidence. It does not affirmatively prove anything about Mr. Paterno.

Furthermore, despite the lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno’s culpability with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report accuses Mr. Paterno of “allow[ing] Sandusky to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child predator, but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy.” Freeh Report at 17. The Freeh Report’s expression of outrage may sound compelling now, with the benefit of hindsight and the evidence that now exists about Sandusky’s criminal misconduct. But given that (1) law enforcement officials and other people investigated the 1998 incident and found no wrongdoing; (2) Seasock’s report exonerated Sandusky; (3) the District Attorney declined to prosecute the case; (4) Sandusky denied the allegations; and (5) the complete lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno’s knowledge, involvement, and actions, it is difficult to see how Mr. Paterno can be subject to ridicule because he “allowed” Sandusky to retire “not as a suspected child predator.”

As to the issue about whether Joe Paterno should have done more with the McQueary information, I keep coming back to one critical missing piece of evidence: what did Curley and Schultz tell him? Schultz, in particular, is the important actor here because he was the top university official in charge of the University Police. Freeh Report at 33. If JoePa wanted to cover this up, he would never have reported McQueary’s information to Curley and Schultz within a day of receiving it. Is waiting one day on a weekend evidence of a cover-up? Mr. Freeh and others seem to think so. The Freeh Report repeatedly cites Mr. Paterno’s comments about not interfering with the weekend as evidence of some kind of evil intent. But, again, this proves nothing. Would the Report conclude differently if Mr.Paterno had spoken with Curley and Schultz on Saturday evening instead of Sunday?

Furthermore, if Mr. Paterno had reported the McQueary information to me (were I, like Schultz, the official in charge of the University Police), I would have told him to keep his mouth shut going forward and let the authorities handle the matter. Otherwise, Mr. Paterno could have tainted the investigation. And, because he was a potential trial witness (to McQueary’s prior consistent statements, see Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence613(c)), any further statements or action by Mr. Paterno could have become cross-examination fodder for the defense. Any further action by Mr.Paterno could only have damaged the integrity of the investigation and any prosecution against Sandusky.

Indeed, Mr. Paterno explained his actions before he died by saying that “I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did.” Freeh Report at 77-78. This statement makes perfect sense, and the notion of a football coach supervising a criminal investigation is ridiculous. It is very possible that Curley or Schultz or both told Mr. Paterno to stay out of the matter; in fact, Schultz should have told him as much. But we don’t know because Schultz and Curley are under indictment and not talking, Paterno is dead, and the Freeh Report did not find any information about this issue.

Much of the case against Mr. Paterno seems to rely on (1) the theory that the Athletic Director, Curley, was JoePa’s “errand boy”; and (2) an email dated February 27, 2001 from Curley to Schultz and Spanier which says that Curley gave the matter “more thought” after “talking it over with Joe” and was “uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” Freeh Report at 74-75. But the “errand boy” evidence amounts to a reference by an unidentified “senior Penn State official” (page 75), and what does it prove anyway? That one person viewed Curley as Paterno’s “errand boy”?

There is no evidence that Curley-as-errand-boy covered up because Joe Paterno told him to do so. And the February 27 email at most suggests that Mr. Paterno spoke with Curley. It does not say what Curley and Paterno discussed, and without any explanation from either Curley or Paterno, it is absurd to read into this that Mr. Paterno was the puppet master behind a coverup orchestrated by Curley, Spanier, and Schultz.

Mr. Paterno was a football coach, not an expert in criminal law or investigations, and this notion of him as some kind of omnipotent and omniscient God who callously turned his back on a serial child molester is unsupported by any evidence.

This is a rather sorry record upon which to condemn Joe Paterno.

People are rarely as good or as bad as they seem at any given time. In Paterno’s case, however, I believe that the old, highly favorable narrative — to which some of the same media types who condemn him now contributed — is much closer to the mark than the revisionist narrative.

A

He was hand-picked and paid a lot of money by the board of trustees who had taken a lot of heat for firing Paterno. A board of trustees that included current governor Corbett, former state attorney general, who also happens to be good friends with Louis Freeh. In case you haven't heard Corbett knew of Sandusky and had him investigated in '98, investigation found nothing and charges against Sandusky were dropped. In 2010 Corbett accepted $650,000 in campaign contributions from the Second Mile(Sandusky's charity). But yeah it's the dead coaches fault who had no legal power whatsoever, not the 2 DA's, univeristy or state police who investigated sandusky, and actually HAD the power to stop him.

It's my fault too because I'm part of this evil culture of football that so desperately needs to be changed. Geez I never thought that being a college football fan and rooting for Penn State was such a terrible sin. Isn't it that way anywhere in the country?

Lets punish the players, current coaching staff, and millions of fans all who had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Lets do it before due process has been served to the accused. Apparently, spending hard time in jail for all those found guilty isn't enough, we need to punish the innocent as well. That'll teach them. Way to go NCAA!

PS. How's that investigation of the Auburn/Cam Newton scandal coming along? The NCAA... what a fucking joke!

A

$60 million is nothing and I'm sure PSU would be glad to pay it(and much more) if it's going to help children of abuse. They've already donated a ton of money to childrens charities since the scandal broke. That part of the punishment is good. It's the rest that makes no sense. OK take some of Joes wins, even though the man was never charged, let alone convicted of a crime- The grand jury had all the "evidence" as Freeh, even moreso as Freeh never interviewed McQueary, Spanier, Schultz or Curley and they found that Paterno was not culpable in any wrong doing. We all know who the all time NCAA winner still is. Take down the statue, OK, the gullible public who never knew the man have made it a center of controversy, no biggie. The loss of scholarships and bowl bans isn't warranted. That's only punishing the innocent. Like LB Mike Mauti said, "I was watching Barney when all this happened."

PS Thanks to Missouri coach Gary Pinkel for standing up for Paterno when no one else has the courage.

A

Here's where I disagree with you: That the school had a lot to gain by covering up for Sandusky. I think it's just the opposite. They had a whole lot more to lose than they did to gain by doing that. Looking at how this played out, I don't think that's even arguable. If Sandusky had been nipped in the bud, it would have been an embarassment for sure but that's about it. You would also have to believe that 4 people who up until now have been known as honorable men are actually terrible people. Graham Spanier was a victim of child abuse himself, has spent much his life helping victims and is incensed by the accusations of Freeh. Of course we all know Paterno's record, you'd be hard pressed to find a former player, friend or colleague who would say anything bad about him. At the very least I think the NCAA should have done their own investigation(yes I know that's a joke) or else waited for the Shultz and Curley trials instead of jumping the gun because of media and public pressure. What happens now if Shultz and Curley are found not guilty? IMO the NCAA sanctions are wrong on many levels and the rush to judgement being the biggest.

A

Well if you're right - it should prove itself as the trials of the others go forward. I agree that the NCAA is a total joke, but for different reasons. Example - how was there ever a choice between what they got and a 4 year death penalty??? It doesn't make sense - it's like offering a criminal a 10 year sentence or probation. Which would the criminal want. Not likening PSU to the criminal I'm just trying to make a point - how was it the punishment they got or a 4 year death penalty. There are solar systems between the two lol. I mean if you were considering a 4 year death penalty - then why not make it two years and then all this stuff?.........how do you go from a 4 year death penalty to a marginal fine (in the larger scheme of things), loss of scholarships (makes it tough for the program but whoop-te-do) - and YOU KEEP THEM ON TV!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
As if any of us really should need be reminded that the NCAA is a complete whore to ratings (ahem! Cam Newton). for the last time - how do you go from a 4 year death penalty to a punishment that doesn't even include the loss of televised games for even one season??? I want to just keep hammering away at this, but will digress.

Honestly, I can't declare that you're totally wrong dude. But obviously everyone did accept that report as factual and yeah - technically we all rushed to judgement. We weren't necessarily wrong in doing that - this shit all looks horrific.And there is a huge common sense factor here - thats why everyone has decided where they stand on it. No way all of this happened and yet Paterno, Spanier, etc etc etc were all 110% duped. It's not believeable. And then the e-mails prove them liars. Proves that they knew at least of allegations. And if you knew of the allegations and yet still pretty much did nothing.....you see why everyone thinks/feels as they do right? Who do you expect everyone to believe - the guys who look really, really freakin guilty or the Freeh Report?

Without reading point by point the stuff you posted above - yeah this stuff is not decided in criminal court. only Sandusky. But only in the most technical fashion does the cover up have any question marks. If you're right - it will come out in time. But respectfully, I don't think you are. I think the whole thing got busted. And it had nothing to do with Paterno - thats what was so BS about what Emmert said - all that shit about stopping the giant, hero worship culture. Totally just painted it like it was covered up because of the legendary Paterno. That was NOT why it was covered up. It was covered up because of the big money that program generates. The higher ups - be it Spanier or Paterno - all of them felt like if it came out.....the big money train could be threatened. Thats why it was covered up. It could be even more simple - Sandusky would have known every little thing about the program -and we all know that nobody is playing it totally straight by any rulebook.....they might have been worried that if they outed him for what really was only allegations at the time - he would have squealed on a lot of things. I think that is highly plausible - because of course Spanier or Paterno weren't monsters like Sandusky. But why did they do nothing? has to be a reason - the "hero worship culture" is such horse shit......it's measley next to the big money that program generated.

Their total, complete, utter inaction to some of the worst things imagineable - simply cannot be attributed to a legendary coach. At the time they were hearing all of this - Sandusky was still a part of the program - common sense should indicate (knowing the others weren't monsters) why they did it. He could well have provided a lot of info - FRESH info - that, as they saw it, could have got them in trouble/affected the big $$$.

So I guess I would be in with your lot on that point. This stuff really has nothing to do with Paterno other than his complicity in it. It is BS that it is all being dumped on Paterno when he was as complicit as the others. But this isn't being analyzed because A. the whole thing was discovered outside of PSU and became much bigger/WAS much bigger than anything they thought - and B. Paterno passed away. To these extents I can agree that a lot of this is BS. It's being just assumed that it was all covered up because everyone wanted to protect Paterno - and that's not it all. They didn't do anything because this guy had intimate knowledge of the entire program and they feared what he could share - and once they didn't act they put themselves on an island. Couldn't wait 5 years and then report it - because the aspect of it I'm talking about would have been extremely prevalent. There had to be a reason they covered it up. It wasn't just a hapless failing of morals that they covered it up - I think they did it for the oldest reason in the book - greed. You're right in the first several sentences of what you just wrote.......but they DID still cover it up. The reasons they did just don't really matter now - not since the full scope of what Sandusky did became known. Doesn't matter that they hid it because there were things Sandusky could have said, especially at the time it was all reported to them, that could have put the program in jeopardy. It's one thing to find and report a child molester - it's another thing when that guy could provide details of infractions. It's the only plausible reason I could see guys that weren't child raping monsters - being so complicit as they were. But we'll never know any of this. No one would believe a thing any of them said by now - all that matters is the full depth and depravity of what Sandusky did. And while that's not wrong - when it comes to punishing PSU - it is worth knowing why Spanier, Paterno, and others did nothing. Because just being scared about the bad PR ......does NOT CUT IT. They were worried about more than that.

Worst part about that is....assuming I am right and there were infractions they were afraid would come out......they probably would have gotten a punishment much like what they did with the loss of scholarships - just not the 60 million dollar fine. And THAT is bs. I still cannot fathom how the NCAA has spent over two decades defending their SMU ruling - and yet didn't give PSU the death penalty here.

The upside is the why should come out in those trials. And guilty or not guilty - I think most will feel even more feverishly that PSU should have gotten the death penalty. Thats where I disagree with you. There was a cover up here and we're not talking infractions - although I think infractions are the real reason it was covered up - but in the end they all had the power to put a stop to the worst thing imagineable - and they didn't do it. I don't think anything will ever debunk that Holden.....I don't think there will be any vindication - anywhere, for anybody. The only thing I see happening is more and more BS coming out. But as strongly as I feel about that - I won't put a 100% to it. In the extremely tiny chance that the administration is as innocent as you portray it.....I'll be the first to be man enough to say you were right. But I don't think you are.

You're right about jumping the gun, right that the NCAA and their "punishments" are hollow and full of shit. Of course we both see the common sense defying bs like Cam Newton. And I agree that the "punishment" was a result of pressure from all sides......but I think the cover up is obvious and thus PSU football should cease to exist for a sizeable length of time.

How much would could a wouldchuck chuck if a 
wouldchuck could chuck would