Jump to content
Hondo's Bar

Penn State scandal


Panch

Recommended Posts

I think they just need to demolish the school and salt the earth where it once lay.

 

You know they might as well. It goes to show you how much the football program meant to the board and everyone else controlling this school. That didn't necessarily care for football to begin with.

 

Football was the strongest identity this school had, not to mention for the entire state. If they trashed the names of every coach (even the coach who called out Paterno n company), they really only used Paterno legacy to get more students into the school. No one was loyal to this guy that mattered. I agree, at this pt they should burn that muthafuka down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This man admitted he knew no better on the situation and openly accepted his failure. I hate the fact that this mans integrity is in question. GQ out up an excerpt out of his biography coming out:

 

http://tracking.si.com/2012/08/15/paterno-biography-penn-state-sobbed-firing/

 

 

Joe Paterno “sobbed uncontrollably” the day after he was fired as the Penn State football coach, sportswriter Joe Posnanski’s writes in new biography, Paterno.

 

In its latest issue, GQ published an excerpt of the book, which is released next Tuesday. GQ.com posted three short sections of that excerpt on its website Wednesday.

 

In one scene from the day after Paterno’s firing, the coach is emotional.

 

On Thursday, Paterno met with his coaches at his house. He sobbed uncontrollably. This was his bad day. Later, one of his former captains, Brandon Short, stopped by the house. When Brandon asked, “How are you doing, Coach?” Paterno answered, “I’m okay,” but the last syllable was shaky, muffled by crying, and then he broke down and said, “I don’t know what I’m going to do with myself.” Nobody knew how to handle such emotion. Joe had always seemed invulnerable. On Thursday, though, he cried continually.

 

“My name,” he told Jay, “I have spent my whole life trying to make that name mean something. And now it’s gone.”

 

The timing of Posnanski’s book has received criticism. The writer agreed to the biography before the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke.

...

Edited by IceManML
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read that first part, that he sobbed uncontrollably, I was initially torn. Because he could have been crying because he was ashamed of himself and his moral failings while in a position of power and authority, and that would have been an introspective moment, where he was sorry for all the people that were hurt because of his cowardice. But from that except, it doesn't read like that's what it was about.

 

“I don’t know what I’m going to do with myself.” Nobody knew how to handle such emotion. Joe had always seemed invulnerable. On Thursday, though, he cried continually.

 

“My name,” he told Jay, “I have spent my whole life trying to make that name mean something. And now it’s gone.”

 

The way this reads, it sounds like he feels the real tragedy is the destruction of his legacy and his personal glory. It sounds like he was very sad, but it was all about what he had lost, not guilt over what he had done. This really makes me think this was not a good guy.

 

Of course, these quotes are surely recalled later by other people, and there might be more context to what he said to people and what he felt, but that except does not humanize him to me, it shows me he's some kind of monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he says "trying to make THAT name mean something". You can't take away that this man dedicated his life to Penn State. He clearly would have just gone to the NFL had he aimed for personal glory. He still felt this way even tho this school gets shafted every year for a BCS.

 

..But yea I understand what you're saying.

Edited by IceManML
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And immediately before saying "THAT name," he said "MY name."

 

I don't know what it was that upset him on that day, I'm just saying that snippet doesn't speak well. If this author (or more likely, some publicist working for his publisher) put out that press release trying to make Paterno look sympathetic, then, at least for me, he/they unwittingly failed spectacularly. If the goal was simply to be provocative, well then, mission accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line for me regarding Joe Paterno:

 

1. In the plus column, Joe Paterno spearheaded a successful collegiate sports program for a number of years. This program was/is a source of joy and pride for many people.

 

2. In the minus column, Joe Paterno participated in a cover-up of child abuse and in protecting a convicted pedophile for a portion of those years. His true motives and level of remorse can only be known to him, but the facts are facts.

 

3. Joe Paterno died with his moral needle in the negative. If you're the type of person who'd rather tout a man for his participation in sports entertainment rather than condemn him for being a willing participant in covering up child abuse and protecting a convicted pedophile then I can't do nuthin' for ya, man.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing I can say about #3 is that his participation in the scandal is questionable. His statements insinuate that he thought he was doind the right thing by trusting in someone more competent on the situation to handle the issue. I dont think a man should be condemned for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me just be clear:

 

I used to love R. Kelly. Now I dislike his character in every sense of the word for doing what he did repeatedly, along side those that refused to bring it to light. And in no way is that at the same caliber of this issue.

 

I dont promote anyone to ruin the childhood/lives of the youth of our world, let alone take their innocence. But I absolutely agree the terms decided on punishing Joe Paterno in particular. Fuk every body else accused.

Edited by IceManML
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing I can say about #3 is that his participation in the scandal is questionable. His statements insinuate that he thought he was doind the right thing by trusting in someone more competent on the situation to handle the issue. I dont think a man should be condemned for that.

Here's the thing: Initially, if you report something like that up the chain of command, fine. If years later, the same guy still keeps an office on campus and runs a camp for kids on the premises, after how many years do you tell yourself "You know what? I don't think the higher-ups did anything about that rape I reported to them." I'm not sure what the exact number of years is the right number, but here's a hint: The right answer is less than 1.

Edited by Reverend Jax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote name='Reverend Jax' timestamp='1345172185' post='406349'

Here's the thing: Initially, if you report something like that up the chain of command, fine. If years later, the same guy still keeps an office on campus and runs a camp for kids on the premises, after how many years do you tell yourself "You know what? I don't think the higher-ups did anything about that rape I reported to them." I'm not sure what the exact number of years is the right number, but here's a hint: The right answer is less than 1.

/quote

 

Way less.

 

 

Edit: I forget how to do the colors :/

 

Edited by Panch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh This case went to the supreme court years ago... Wha happen?

 

How do you cover up something vs the FBI? That's either a serious FBI fail or someone from the inside was bribed big time. But guess what

 

not. Joe. Paterno's. fault.

 

Thanks. I said my piece. I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Prominent Catholic Friar on Sandusky: 'A lot of cases the youngster is the seducer'

 

Father Benedict Groeschel, a prominent friar, television host, and director of the Office for Spiritual Development for the Catholic Archdiocese of New York, gave an interview to the National Catholic Reporter this week. It's been taken down — why? Probably because Groeschel claimed that "in a lot of cases" of abuse, "the youngster... is the seducer." And expressed sympathy with Jerry Sandusky.

 

more

 

[interviewer]: Part of your work here at Trinity has been working with priests involved in abuse, no?

 

[Father Groeschel]: A little bit, yes; but you know, in those cases, they have to leave. And some of them profoundly — profoundly — penitential, horrified. People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that's not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.

 

[interviewer]: Why would that be?

 

[Father Greoschel]: Well, it's not so hard to see — a kid looking for a father and didn't have his own — and they won't be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that.

 

It's an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers. Generally, if they get involved, it's heterosexually, and if it's a priest, he leaves and gets married — that's the usual thing — and gets a dispensation. A lot of priests leave quickly, get civilly married and then apply for the dispensation, which takes about three years.

 

But there are the relatively rare cases where a priest is involved in a homosexual way with a minor. I think the statistic I read recently in a secular psychology review was about 2%. Would that be true of other clergy? Would it be true of doctors, lawyers, coaches?

 

Here's this poor guy — [Penn State football coach Jerry] Sandusky — it went on for years. Interesting: Why didn't anyone say anything? Apparently, a number of kids knew about it and didn't break the ice. Well, you know, until recent years, people did not register in their minds that it was a crime. It was a moral failure, scandalous; but they didn't think of it in terms of legal things.

 

If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties — except for rape or violence — it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way. Sometimes statutory rape would be — but only if the girl pushed her case. Parents wouldn't touch it. People backed off, for years, on sexual cases. I'm not sure why.

 

I think perhaps part of the reason would be an embarrassment, that it brings the case out into the open, and the girl's name is there, or people will figure out what's there, or the youngster involved — you know, it's not put in the paper, but everybody knows; they're talking about it.

 

At this point, (when) any priest, any clergyman, any social worker, any teacher, any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act — not necessarily intercourse — they're done. And I'm inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Joe Paterno knew of Jerry Sandusky abuse in 1976 after 14 year old boy came to him

 

A man testified in court in 2014 that Penn State football coach Joe Paterno ignored his complaints of a sexual assault committed by assistant coach Jerry Sandusky in 1976 when the man was a 14-year-old boy, according to new court documents unsealed Tuesday in a Philadelphia court.

 

The victim, who was identified in court records as John Doe 150, said that while he was attending a football camp at Penn State, Sandusky touched him as he showered. Sandusky’s finger penetrated the boy’s rectum, Doe testified in court in 2014, and the victim asked to speak with Paterno about it. Doe testified that he specifically told Paterno that Sandusky had sexually assaulted him, and Paterno ignored it.

 

“Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, ‘I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?'” the man’s lawyer asked him in 2014.

 

“Specifically. Yes … I was shocked, disappointed, offended. I was insulted… I said, is that all you’re going to do? You’re not going to do anything else?”

 

Paterno, the man testified, just walked away.

 

from deadspin:

 

In compiling his report, Williams was given access to information about Penn State’s settlements. This is confidential information, and in addition to citing two more widely known incidents (including that witnessed by Mike McQueary), the report appears to have unearthed four new cases that were not publicly known:

  • A 1976 incident where one alleged victim made a report to Joe Paterno.
  • A 1987 instance of improper sexual contact between Sandusky and a minor that was witnessed by then-assistant coach Joe Sarra.
  • A 1988 instance of improper sexual contact between Sandusky and a child that was witnessed by then-assistant coach Kevin O’Dea.
  • A 1988 incident, the report of which was referred to then-athletic director Jim Tarman.

"but hey, at least he didn't buy a house for a player's parents, or pay for their meals...then, the righteous NCAA would've had to do something."

 

 

*edit: oh, it gets worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...