Greg Schiano and Tom Bradley knew about Sandusky - unsealed Mike McQueary deposition

Submitted by samsoccer7 on July 12th, 2016 at 11:11 AM

Apparently Schiano and Bradley mentioned seeing Sandusky commit atrocities.  Sickening.  Not much more for me to add but Schiano had a quote before saying something along the lines of it being a terrible situation and fewer words would be better (perhaps b/c he knew it could be used against him at some point).


Leaders And Best

July 12th, 2016 at 12:00 PM ^

Do you honestly believe an assistant who had been there for over 15 years didn't have any knowledge about Sandusky? Especially if McQueary and other assistants knew?

I don't think the "he wouldn't have let his son play here knowing there was a predator" logic holds water. There are advantages to having your father on the football staff and playing close to home & your family. And you could apply your logic to PSU, Paterno, a bunch of administrators and assistants, etc. A lot of people at PSU were making decisions that in retrospect don't seem logical. Maybe they thought Sandusky's crimes could be contained and didn't affect them. I don't know. But I find it hard to believe that anyone that served that long in the program wouldn't have heard about it if that many assistants knew.

I think the innocent before proven guilty applies to firing a coach for cause. But it doesn't apply to hiring coaches. I was a little surprised Larry Johnson got hired that quickly, and I have a feeling OSU did not do their due diligence here. This is compounded by the fact that they now have Schiano on staff as well.


July 12th, 2016 at 11:45 PM ^

I think that the only concern Urban had when hiring and what Johnson might have known is what recruits could he poach from a class or two from a recruiting perspective.  He has never been known to really do a very good job of worrying about vetting a players past either based upon the tire fire he left in Gainsville.


July 12th, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

First off, I think PSU is as scum as it gets.

I have a friend who is close to Larry and while Larry was there, he didn't have much interaction with the other coaches outside of practice and games. It was a very business relationship. The coaches that didn't see Sandusky doing the abuse that knew of it, heard about the abuse from being in the group of coaches that were very clicky. Well before anything with Sandusky came out Larry expressed for years that the other coaches never fully accepted him and didn't talk to him much.


July 12th, 2016 at 2:34 PM ^

Because of the demographics I can see that as being a credible arguement. But if there was even the inkling of those acts being possible, he should have anonymously reported it. (Of course that is if he ever heard it) There simply isn't any room for allowing that to happen if you have prior knowledge. 

SC Wolverine

July 12th, 2016 at 12:08 PM ^

This is exactly right.   It's hard to put ourselves back into that context, but that's the way it was then.  I don't think it was as well understood just what the effects are in these boys.  I say this with no intention at all to justify the attitude -- it really is hard to comprehend today.  But that is just how it was in the 70's and probably 80's too.

Benoit Balls

July 12th, 2016 at 12:22 PM ^

I said "maybe" and at this point, its worth investigating. Thats all. It's a question worth asking. To continue to say "nope, there was just a mindset back then" naah, not now, not anymore. Not in the face of 30+ years of knowledge. There just very well may be a reason beyond "thats just how it was".

My Grandfather was older than Paterno, and he wouldn't have turned a blind eye. My Dad once though one of his coworkers had ripped my shirt "horsing around" one day and was about ready to kill him (and really, he was born in the 40s so not that far remvoed from Paterno).

Im not saying Paterno was a molester, but perhaps he had some weird predilection. Maybe something Sandusky knew about and Joe traded silence for silence. 

Amd again, MAYBE.  But its worth asking. Im no longer willing to accept Paterno was silent for all those years "just because".  It could very well be the case, and there may not be anything more to it than that, but at this point, assumptions are no longer good enough.


July 12th, 2016 at 4:43 PM ^

there was a time when child labor which led to many deaths was perfectly tolerated. Kids used to be viewed as "mini adults" and not psychologically vulnerable. I wouldn't doubt that awareness of the damage of abuse was so well known by, say, your average football assistant, back in 1970s. But even then, **obviously** those kids never consented, they were taken advantage of, and by the mid 2000s, certainly more should've come forward

That isn't the full of it though, if we're being honest. It's not just about indifference to the victims. Same sex activity even between adults was mostly reviled in the 1970s. It would've been very easy to fire sandusky and vilify any who enabled this. It only became much harder as the undefeated seasons piled up. It seems to me to only have to do with football trumping justice


July 12th, 2016 at 1:24 PM ^

GTFO. No. Paterno was just from an old-world culture

It's interesting that people are still somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of Paterno being a bad guy.

Honestly, how can we really know at this point? There are any number of reasons why he protected Sandusky. The one that's the least disturbing to us is that he was just "old school" and didn't want to bring it up, but that's not the only possible explanation.


July 12th, 2016 at 4:36 PM ^

Here's the crux of the problem:

We don't know what Paterno's thought processes were at the time. We cannot know.

We know the results. The results are horrible.

But people are hyperbolizing the motives, and that is actually making the situation more divisive and more repeatable. Here's why:

When one suggests that Paterno was a "monster" or an active participant, others who do not think that was the case (no evidence for this, after all) feel intellectually compelled to dissent. And people who cared about Joe, like his family and friends, will bristle at the accusation.

Many conclude that Paterno must have made a conscious choice to allow young people to be victimized in order to preserve his football program.

But, based on what is currently known, it is quite possible that he allowed this to continue for decades without once ever making a specific choice in its favor. He didn't "choose" to enable Sandusky. Instead, he negligently declined to address it. Whether it was unbelievable or unbearable or whatever. We don't know. But this scenario is quite possible.

Yet this makes him no less morally or legally responsible for the crimes to continue.

This is important, because when people hyperbolize somebody's moral reasoning in a situation like this, they believe that since they would never consciously choose to allow someone to do something terrible that they will never negligently fail to stop it should it occur.

But that is not true. Vigilance is necessary. Particularly when children are involved. We simply do not know what Paterno's moral calculus was; it doesn't matter. The outcomes do. He had a responsibility and he failed to uphold it.


July 12th, 2016 at 11:49 PM ^

He knew about it in the mid 70's and allowed it to continue. People came to him over and over and he was more concerned with the football team. Here's a picture of him with a guy he knew was molesting little kids and allowed it to continue. This was 1999.

Does it look like he was at all concerned with what this asshole was doing to those kids? Remember he knew this guy was fucking little children in the ass.

You defend this and say we need to be more understanding and welcoming? He allowed this asshole to start a charity for little kids to enable him to have more access to these kids and enabled this asshole to molest more kids.

I have no understanding of what anyone at Penn State did. I'm repulsed by everything they did and by anyone who tries to promote "understanding" of what was allowed to happen there.


July 13th, 2016 at 10:32 AM ^

Nowhere does Stephen King use the words "welcoming" or "understanding".  This is a horrible crime. Sexual assault on anyone is.  Nobody is arguing that.  He just said stick to evidence and avoid hyperbole (Paterno did it, too v. Paterno knew and did nothing--one is proven, the other is a HUGE leap).