JoePa Apparently Senile As Far Back As 1998

cool story bro ;)

I don't think he had full-blown Alzheimer's or anything.  But it wouldn't be shocking to see a man in his 70s, in a position this stressful, having some lapses here and there that a younger man wouldn't.  That Conlan story is pretty bad.  Can you imagine Hoke calling for Woodson to come in and replace Countess?

Did you work in the same practice?

I think what he's saying is that someone he had worked closely with, in the same offices for years, should have known what was going on with an investigation, or at least that there was one.

 I am usually the one that believes, “Never assume anything!”  BUT in the case; Given the high-visibility, loyal alumni, insider information, and “closed-door” meetings that surely go along with powerful coaches and people of influence; not having knowledge of an investigation in this instance is very unbelievable.

 Have personally seen similar situations in the military and pentagon. Am sure there are many loyal PSU friends and alumni in the halls of Pennsylvania government and other high venues of law enforcement as there are UMich alumni in MI government (ie. Mike Cox) If a similar situation happened here years ago, do you seriously think that some high placed friend loyal to Bo, wouldn’t have told him to distance himself or at least alert him so he didn’t get blind-sided by the fall-out?

 So doubt he didn’t have some inkling of some sort of trouble. I feel very sorry for the JoPa, but this is hardly some “routine” legal trouble, even something like professional malpractice litigation that can be swept under the rug. The head couch at a university like PSU is MAJOR news and constantly in the spotlight. 

A she?

I'm sorry that some people on this board continue to struggle to make judgements that aren't wrapped up in their uncontrolled emotions, but let the statement stand as is. Or, lets actually provide context to it. 

There is this thing in our country called a legal process. Innocent until proven guilty. It's really a novel concept. When one goes to trial, the defendant has rights, and the defense has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he's guilty. The whole investigative process has to be followed correctly, and if not, those things can plant doubt in a jury, or a judge can determine that information or the way information was obtained is not legal and prevents the defendant from receiving a fair trial (or their rights were violated). 

If Joe Paterno doesn't report this to his supervisors, which was the explicit policy for such actions at Penn State in 2002, then he could have provided a means for which charges against Sandusky are dropped, and he continues to rape young boys - allegedly. 

At this point your interpretation is just as likely as mine. You can argue they aren't, but you're assumption would still involve speculation. 

Sandusky and Paterno were distant. Just because you work with someone for a long time doesn't mean you're close. I know that seems hard to believe, but do you think that Nick Saban is close with many, if any of his assistants? Probably few. Sandusky did his job, and Paterno his. Considering the story that has been consistent since Sandusky's retirement in 1998, it doesn't seem as if Paterno and him got along. That's possible. Or at least they were civil, could coach together, and that was that. It worked because they won. It wouldn't be the first time that type of relationship existed. However, we dont' know anything more.

If an investigation occurred in 1998, it's possible that unless Paterno was a witness to any of the claims, he wouldn't be asked about it. Nor, would you tell your football coach about it if he's busy winning games and competing for national titles - which Penn State was at that time. Maybe, maybe not. No charges were filed, so a football crazed town went on with life. Besides, it's plausible deniability. It happens alot. Dont' tell, he can't be responsible. 13 years ago, things were still different in the way the media ran after stories like these and even the public outrage would be different.  Again, my speculation is no more valid than yours. 

Paterno is from an older generation, where even normal sexual activity wasn't consistently or publicly discussed. Now we have a young coach telling him, or not telling him about his former assistant anal raping a boy. That kind of stuff blows your mind. Seeing it is horrific, I can only imagine. This is where I state what I've said before, anyone on this board or anywhere who has not been in that situation before can only speculate as to what they might do. What you'd actually do - you have NO clue. Dont' tell me what you want to do, you don't know. This is part of why life is unpredictable. So stop your santimonious, male testosterone chest beating. It's unrealistic. I hope you would do the right thing. I've seen too many honorable men falter in such situations. Maybe you're better. I don't know, Again, speculation. But it's apparent Joe was clueless, as I think most men or women of that generation would be. Not an excuse, just a reality.

Did Joe fail? Yes. Was he malicious? Hard to say. 

As for those claiming he was senile because you have a friend ... i have plenty of friends who played college sports who have embellished or lied about their performances. Game winning tackles, kicks, passes, catches, runs, hits, baskets, blocks, dives, sprints, kicks, goals, saves, etc ... many of which were never true, or slightly true. People claim they got paid, got laid by escorts during recruiting trips, this coach did this, this guy did that ... etc, etc. Heck, we don't even know if the infamous David Terrell story is true or not, but it caught on, didn't it. 

As for the former staffer who said Paterno tried to control all things. We don't know for sure, nor do we know that trying to discipline players his way is = to this. In this case he clearly passed the buck, but maybe he thought it was the right thing, but kids missing curfew, drinking underage (no one does that in college), getting into fights (ditto), or even involved in petty theft (ditto again), he might have thought he could do it. However, this does seem inconsistent with chain of command. Then again, if you don't even understand how a man could rape a boy, you probably don't want to jump in either. 

All I know is that I don't know enough still, and we might never. I'm not Woj at ESPN who goes off half-cocked, or a blogger, or someone making comments. Emotional responses filled with assumptions won't help us prevent this from happening again (nothing probably will - but it can minimize the occurrances), but rational thought will.