Article on Sandusky scandal from 7 months ago

Submitted by FabFiver5 on November 9th, 2011 at 4:32 PM

From the looks of this April 3, 2011 article, almost everyone knew that Jerry Sandusky was into some dark, disturbing, disgusting things. The writer does seem to question the program and the actions of Paterno though.

The only question I have is that why, if everyone knew about it, was nothing done sooner?! Although we have a milion other Sandusky threads, I thought this was appropriate to show that this was an ongoing issue that everyone dragged their feet and shrugged their shoulders about in Happy Valley.

Best-case scenario: Charges are never brought, and Sandusky walks away with his reputation permanently scarred. The rumors, the jokes, the sideways glances - they won't ever stop. Paterno and Penn State do the great escape.

Worst-case scenario: Sandusky is charged. Then it seems reasonable to wonder: Did Penn State not make an issue of Sandusky's alleged behavior in 1998 in exchange for him walking away from the program at an age premature for most coaches? Did Penn State's considerable influence help get Sandusky off the hook?

http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusk…

Comments

mGrowOld

November 9th, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^

It appears the writer had access to some of the Grand Jury's findings prior to Sandusky's arrest and the report's release.  Sounds like Sandusky's behavior was no big secret though and many knew of it even if they didn't actually...i dunno....DID ANYTHING about it.

What a shock.

MadMonkey

November 9th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^

My outrage has just found another level regarding the university's handling of this matter.

Check out this part of the article:

"Don't kid yourself. That could happen. Don't underestimate the power of Paterno and Penn State in central Pennsylvania when it comes to politicians, the police and the media."

UMfan21

November 9th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^

Did Yahoo sports ever release their other "Big story" this year?  I meant to ask and then this PSU story broke.  Is this the other big one?

Steve in PA

November 9th, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^

It is NOT a coincedence that it broke during PSU's bye week AFTER Joe won his magical xxxth game.  People worship the image of Paterno rather than the man.  He has a very carefully crafted public personna and the Homers by into it 100%.

MGoBeer

November 9th, 2011 at 5:22 PM ^

It was a three year investigation if I'm not mistaken. The investigation/grand jury takes a long time. The police have had their eye on him for awhile though. In regards to how the Penn State administration could pretend like it's not happening is pretty shocking though. They must have known about the investigation and proceeded business as usual until their hand was forced. Did these people really think they could keep their jobs?

True Blue Grit

November 9th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^

because Sandusky was a high-profile and liked PSU football coach who was a good friend of Joe Paterno, no one wanted to rock the boat.  Ultimately, everyone was trying to protect the precious reputation of the school and King Paterno - even at the exclusion of ethical behavior and protecting children from a known predator.  I have to think that if these crimes had been committed by some no-name assistant clerk who didn't know Paterno at all, action would have been taken much, much sooner. 

gobluesasquatch

November 9th, 2011 at 7:13 PM ^

It's been rumored for some time that Paterno and Sandusky were not that close, and that after his "resignation" that they were even less close.

When you consider the last few Penn St. defenses, 1994 - 1999, they were good, but not great. And that was with some stocked NFL talent. The defense in 1994 let them down and Indiana's 14 points in garbage time led a blowout win look closer than it was. That cost them #1 votes and they finished second, after allowing 28 points or 24 points to Oregon. 

The discussion at the time was that Sandusky was spending too much time with the Second Mile and not with coaching. How eerie is that to hear now. Joe had basically told him he wouldn't succeed him and that if he didn't focus more on football, he'd be gone. 

What's sad is the way the media, and blogs are so distorting this timeline to make Joe look awful. The media often says so and so was an heir apparent, and yes that is the view of the national media circa late 90s. But we've seen the story before where asst. coach X is the heir apparent to succeed coach Y, and it never happens. Never is considered. Sometimes coach Y doesn't even like coach X or want that. So the speculation that he was forced out and that Paterno knew is just that, sick, twisted speculation. 

Paterno and Sandusky were not close friends, that is well known. True Blue Grit, you seem to just weave a tale that there is little evidence for besides speculation. We still don't know much about the facts:

What was Paterno told by McQuery? What did Paterno tell his AD and more importantly why? What if anything did he know about previous allegations? What was Sandusky's role in the program (ie. football) after the 2002 allegations. Would Paterno even have the time to notice if Sandusky was around (besides on game day). We don't know that ... 

Another good point has been brought up is the generational gap. Oh, and lets not forget the horror of watching and then hearing about a graphic sexual act. Now McQuery can talk about it, but I know if I saw that, I'm not sure what I'd do, but at some point throwing up, screaming and being in a fetal position on the floor of my shower would probably occur. And yes, I'd call my dad to, wondering what the hell was wrong in this world. 

I'll say it again, and go ahead and neg away, we all want vengance for what has been done. Not justice, we've already moved beyond that, because we know that sometimes there isn't enough "justice" in our minds. We are in a lynch mob mentality, and the hit job article on SI about him facing criminal charges is nothing more than an opinion piece by someone not related to the case nor the AG's office. 

Hindsight is always so much easier to act. I'd like to see Paterno use some of his post coaching days talking about what happened, why he acted in the manner he did and use that as a lesson for others not to act the same way. I would not be surprised to see him do good even after this.

I think turning him into a conspiring villan is more revealing about the dark nature of the heart of many mgoblog readers than about Joe Paterno's heart. If evidence clearly implicates him in a conspiracy, I'll change my opinion. Until then, I'll let the facts come out. 

 

Yeoman

November 9th, 2011 at 8:16 PM ^

"Sandusky was spending too much time with Second Mile."

That's also what Virginia said when he interviewed there the following year:

In 2000, one year into his retirement from Penn State, Sandusky was a leading candidate to succeed George Welsh at Virginia.

The primary reason U.Va. officials turned to then-New York Jets coach Al Groh instead: They questioned Sandusky’s commitment to coaching given the considerable time he spent running The Second Mile, a charity he founded for at-risk youth.

Teel Time: Former Penn State football assistant charged with sexual assault almost coached UVa, Maryland

 

jmblue

November 9th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^

Hindsight is always so much easier to act. I'd like to see Paterno use some of his post coaching days talking about what happened, why he acted in the manner he did and use that as a lesson for others not to act the same way. I would not be surprised to see him do good even after this.

Do you always feel this way when a person is accused of covering up (or at least looking the other way about) a serious crime? Or do you just make an exception for 84-year-old football coaches? Could it be you, not other posters, that is blinded by bias (in JoePa's favor, in this case)?

Speaking for myself, I personally had no issue with JoePa before this. And I have no real desire to see a guy at the end of his career get his reputation destroyed. But this just looks awful. A man came to JoePa reporting a sex crime and he didn't call the police - and even let the alleged offender continue to have access to his program. If there is some miraculous way that JoePa is guiltless (like if, somehow, he wanted to press charges and the AD said no), hey, I'd be fine with that. But I personally doubt that's the case.

gobluesasquatch

November 9th, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^

Do you always feel this way when a person is accused of covering up (or at least looking the other way about) a serious crime? - ASSUMPTION (the cover up part). What we know is that he reported to the AD that Sandusky was seen involved in some sort of sexual act with a child. That we know. Hardly a cover up. Also, that is what was required of him, and you can even argue, the operating protocol in this case. (I'm so pissed that the state of PA has a writen protocol that Paterno followed, and then they have the nerve to criticize him for following their poorly thought out statutes .. that is a failure by the state of PA - and shoudl be changed ASAP). 

and even let the alleged offender continue to have access to his program - ASSUMPTION. We don't know how much Joe actually allowed him to have access to the facilities. We know the University allegedly took away the keys. Joe's running a massive football operation under dimishing capabilities. Imagine the work he does all week long, and how much could go on while the assistants are game planning and Joe is napping (okay, I need some humor right now). But seriously, Sandusky could come and go without notice pretty easy, especially depending on where his office is in relationship to Joe's. 

Furthermore, these were allegations. Serious ones, and one of the hard questions I have is if McQuerry made the allegations, and you kept him on staff, but you weren't told that anything happend to Sandusky, wouldn't you at least talk to McQuerry about it? I would. But then again, Joe is from an older time when you report things to your boss and let them be - because you trust/believe they are doing the right thing. Imagine you aren't so jaded, and you believe that if you reported the action as responsible, your bosses would do the same and look into it, including the police. I wonder if in the end, Joe believed the police were looking into it. I'd like to hear his thoughts on that. Of course this whole paragraph of mine is largely an ASSUMPTION. Apparently neither of us is privy to all the facts, or at least not omniscient (I know I'm not). 

But I personally doubt that's the case. - Do I need to say anything about this one.

Or do you just make an exception for 84-year-old football coaches? - Not football coaches, but an 84 year old man who by all accounts up until 5 days ago we all believed might have been above the fray (and still might be). Track record speaks for something, and I'm more likely to at least be patient and give some benefit of the doubt to someone who had doen more good in half his life than either you nor I. I'll state that as fact, because if we were really doing good, we'd walk away from mgoblog and do something. Would Lane Kiffin or Jim Tressel get the same benefit of the doubt - no way. Not a chance. However, I'd still want the facts to come out, but in the latter case, I'd be more prone to make assumptiosn and jump to conclusions. I know I joked about getting a degree in cynical engineering, but damn, the past few days have helped me realize just how much more cynical bloggers are. 

I could be biased, sure, but in general, I think most bloggers are blinded by their general cynicism toward society, their bitterness toward those who are successful, and are blinded by the anger they have at this horrible crime, their need to be able to say this could have been prevented, because if this is preventable, then maybe, just maybe, all sexual predators can be stopped before they commit their crimes. (Note: My ASSUMPTION). Sadly, that's not realistic. 

I think JoePa is the biggest target because he isn't being legally implicated, he didn't legally violate anything, and is also respectable enough that he won't attack the slanderous media (and yes, it's slander or libel - can't remember which is which, to write stories with no factual basis - the whole Sandusky retiring as part of the cover up is not only laughable, but embarrassingly inaccurate) or call anyone out on their own personal hypocracy. Again, this is an ASSUMPTION too. 

 

 

 

Yeoman

November 9th, 2011 at 10:14 PM ^

...and the written Pennsylvania protocol, I've mentioned this on another thread but I guess I'll say it here too:

It's clear from the language of the law that it was drafted to address situations where someone begins to suspect that a child is a victim of abuse: a child comes to school with suspicious bruises, say, or makes odd and suspicious comments to a psychologist. It wasn't intended to apply to a direct witness of a crime in a situation where the child is in immediate danger--it's rather rare for that to happen in a school or childcare setting. That it's the applicable law here is something of an accident, and it's the reason for the discrepancy between what the authorities think should have been done and what the law actually requires.

(And, yes, the direct witness was McQueary, not Paterno. I don't know how many comments I've seen on these various threads that seem to have gotten that wrong.)

Pibby Scott

November 10th, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^

1. One of your best friends is accused of doing something sexual in a shower with a young boy. You "follow protocol" and report it to the AD. Nothing seemingly happens with the investigation. Are you assuming Joe assumed Sandusky was somehow exonerated? It's his best friend, or one of them, right, and we can at the least assume Joe would be concerned about his best friend. So Joe follows up, right? He finds out what is going on with his friend? What does he find out in 2002? Nothing? His friend is in the clear? He doesn't bother to find anything out? Why? He "followed protocol" and it's out of his head?

He should be held accountable for either not disclosing what he found out or for not being interested in finding out if anything happened to one of his good friends accused of having sex with a boy. In what other ways can you defend him here?

2. Joe's running a massive football operation under dimishing capabilities. Imagine the work he does all week long, and how much could go on while the assistants are game planning and Joe is napping (okay, I need some humor right now). But seriously, Sandusky could come and go without notice pretty easy, especially depending on where his office is in relationship to Joe's.

It's funny that you chastise those of us for our "assumptions" and yet you ask at the same time for people to "imagine" (which means, assume the reality of the following hypothetical situation: for neither you nor I know "exactly" what it means to run a D1 program) the amount of work Joe had to do each week in running his football program and that is how he somehow managed not to see one of his good friends on campus for nearly a decade after hearing first hand from someone who saw him a shower with a young boy. Moreover, Jerry Sandusky still held his position within his Charity. Joe knew what he had been accused of and was apparently okay with what work he assumed Jerry was doing with and around children in his Second City Charity. That is one assumption. Or we assume Joe put it out of his mind "because it was too hard to believe". We should hold Joe accountable in either scenario.

3. Joe is the biggest target because he is the most powerful figure in the Happy Valley Football Community. Either he used that power to sweep something under the rug or he misused that power by "putting things completely out of his mind". He should be lampooned for either being incompetent and morally irresponsible (I've said elsewhere, moral and legal obligations to a community are not the same) or for being in some way responsible for what looks like a "cover-up".

4. What we know is that he reported to the AD that Sandusky was seen involved in some sort of sexual act with a child.

Then you write "hardly a cover up". That was in 2002. You're again assuming Joe wasn't the least bit curious as to the outcome of the non-investigation that took place. We're all assuming Joe was aware of the fact that the police were not involved in the 2002 allegtions.

We know that they (Paterno and co.) believed the accusations were serious enough as to bar Sandusky from bringing boys to school, and we know everyone involved in the accusations were made aware of these results. All parties have said so.

From there, it is correct to assume one of two things. Either Joe didn't see fit to bring the police in because he had "done enough" by reporting it up the chain of command. In thinking he had done enough, Joe is also giving tacit approval to the actions of the Instiution to which he was reporting. He must have felt they had also done enough in their "non criminal investigation" into the allegations against Sandusky, given, again, that he had felt he had done enough in the first place. Or, Joe is that ignornant of the law, that he assumes something sexual happening in the boys lockerroom at PSU between an adult and boy is an instiutional matter and not a criminal matter. Again, he has power, and he either used it incorrectly, ignornantly, or criminally.

There's no credible explanation for Joe's behavior. Either way, he needs to be held accountable. You can empathasize with the man, understand that he was put into a position of great difficulty because of one of his friends; but being empathic doesn't mean that you are forbidden from 1. making conclusions and 2. judging the man's behaviors based on those conclusions that you've rationally come to, given the evidence. Joe failed in his role as a figurehead and as a leader of a public institution and he failed spectacularly.

931 S State

November 9th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^

I'm surprised more people in the media aren't talking about the "convenient timeline" for Sandusky's 1999 retirement that the author of this article addresses.  When this story broke over the weekend the first thing that I thought of was the '99 Michigan/Penn State game and Sandusky's farewell tour with the Lavar Arrington/Courtney Brown led defense.  I remember the retirement being addressed by the Musburger/Danielson crew.  Even in 1999 nobody really had an explanation why Sandusky, then only 55 and with arguably his most talented defense ever, was retiring.   Pretty obvious why now.

nickb

November 9th, 2011 at 6:19 PM ^

insular community. They are isolated from the rest of PA and only allow outsiders to visit for football games. They take care of their own and JoePa was the ruler. When any of his football players got in trouble it was buried faster than Bin Laden.

The culture was to protect regardless of the wrong. It was all about football and perpetuting the myth of success with honor. As a result, Sandusky one of their own was given criminal latitude to continue is evil ways and community turned a blind eye.

There is an interesting article about the disappearance of the DA who investigated the 1998 incident involving Sandusky. To this day he has not be found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/questions-on-sand…

Steve in PA

November 10th, 2011 at 9:39 AM ^

Strangely enough, I went to PSU and the DA disappeared at a park by my home at the time.  My wedding portrait were even shot there.  Hope I'm not a suspect?

But back on point...It's widely assumed by law enforcement that Gricar's disappearance is tied to his investigating meth labs and trafficking in central PA.  Outside of State College, it's rural enough that someone could "cook" on a farm in the barn and nobody would know.

Sandusky's pedophilia has nothing to do with it unless he would get high on meth beforehand.

 

ixcuincle

November 10th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^

If the WEEI allegations from Madden are true, then the program is in serious shit. He basically said the charity was used to pimp out boys to rich donors. I really hope this is not true. 

The Denarding

November 10th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^

 

I know one of the trustees at Penn State very well - my wife has known their family for years.  If people knew (and they will when this becomes a civil trial) how deep this goes, firing JoePa was the only choice.  The trustees were appalled at the depth of the problem and more importantly the depth of the cover up.  Joe Pa wasn't an idiot - he knew that Sandusky was molesting children as late as THIS PAST SPRING!  HE F'ING KNEW!!!   Every single decision in the football program, every person affiliated with the football program is personally vetted by JoePa.  

The trustees knew if they didn't fire him, they were opening themselves up to a massive and very deep hole.  He was complicit in sex acts - don't kid yourselves.  The entire staff was - they all knew what Jerry Sandusky was doing AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT.   The trustees have no choice.

The bigger question they face is whether they should fire the rest of the staff.  There is a lot of internal evidence they have been presented that the entire staff had good knowledge that this was occurring on campus and in their facilities.