OT: Sandusky reportedly linked to NY prep scandal.

Submitted by NoMoPincherBug on September 20th, 2012 at 4:40 PM


A Philadelphia man who claims to have been paid to have sex with former Poly Prep football coach Phil Foglietta in 1979 as part of an alleged pedophile ring that included Jerry Sandusky sent an email to several Poly Prep officials on Monday - including current headmaster David Harman - detailing the explosive allegation.

Foglietta died in 1998. According to a source familiar with the coach, he claimed that he had been offered a job on several occasions to serve on Joe Paterno's Penn State football staff at Penn State. But Foglietta chose to stay at the Dyker Heights school because, according to the source, "he wanted to be big fish in a small pond."

If this is true, then PSU almost had a 2nd pedophile on their coaching staff. 



September 20th, 2012 at 4:48 PM ^

I wish this subject would just recede into the background forever.  But alas, Sandusky will be sentenced mid-October, so we are bound to relive it all over again.


September 20th, 2012 at 5:08 PM ^

predatorial types still out there, and that's alleged to be the case. There have been several reports of parties with wealthy businessmen in Philly, boys. . . I have long since long any desire to hear details, but--personally--I want these people in jail. These are abuses of power. 


September 20th, 2012 at 7:53 PM ^

Eatin' for Pahokee is no longer a football story, either.  Granted, it is far to the other side of the story spectrum, but it is significant news.  Bury your head if you like, but to not spread this kind of story is to do a disservice to those abused.  The more people that are aware of exactly what went on, the more vigilant they will be to prevent it in the future.


September 21st, 2012 at 9:22 AM ^

So, mgobules, are you saying that regurgitating this story in mgoblog is going to have a direct effect on child abuse in the NY or Philly areas?  That if the story gets pounded into the ground here, even one child molester 500 miles away from Ann Arbor is going to inexpllicibly stop?

I love mgoblog, but I think you might be giving it too much credit.  This is merely a case of Andy Rooney's observation that it feels good to hate wrongdoers being spot on.  I'm sure there are plenty of great blogs where the focus is child abuse.  Maybe threads like this one would be more appropriate there.

I'm tired of people trying to turn mgoblog into PSUgoblog.


September 20th, 2012 at 5:21 PM ^

There are still the perjury trials for the Penn State administrators Curley and Schultz.  According to the MGo lawyers who weighed in, perjury convictions are rare, and I suspect they will be found not guilty.  The Penn State conspiracy nuts are already, well nuts, but there will be a different level of craziness when the Joe Pa apologists start proclaiming that a "not guilty" verdict means Curley and Schultz are innocent and that the Freeh report has been proven in court to be false.


September 20th, 2012 at 5:29 PM ^

I, for one, don't want to "see this shit die" until two things happen:

1. All the crimes that Sandusky committed and all the people who helped him commit them are brought to light.  If this is true then there is an entirely new string of victims out there and from what I read it's highly unlike Sandusky just became a pedophile in his late 40's.  Odds are he was doing this for some time beforehand and just like at PSU, powerful people used their influence to silence those who could stop him.  Who else did this monster destroy?

2. The idiots at PSU (I'm looking at you BSD) own this problem and quit trying to play the victim card cause their precious football program got slammed.  Every time I hear them trying to defind saintly JoePa or claim the Freeh report was biased and not factual I want to scream.  And until they accept it I hope they never win another football game.

So I don't want it to die.  Not yet.


September 20th, 2012 at 7:16 PM ^

This story is not close to being over  Two criminal trials are coming up, in January, I think, and then there are the civil suits which, if not settled, would go to trial.  I also believe the feds have been hard at work investigating the story, with emphasis on "believe".


September 20th, 2012 at 10:10 PM ^

Can we get 'placeholder' posts in the place of ones that were deleted?  Something like "Post was removed due to X"...

The only reason I know jonvalk wasn't replying to the OP, is that I saw that scumbag post before it was deleted.  It can get kind of confusing if you delete a post without deleting the reactions or putting something in the place of the incendiary post.  A lot of times it looks like we have completely irrational people posting overreactions to random posts.

We all know that never happens on this site.


September 20th, 2012 at 5:21 PM ^

I'm not gay myself, but I have no issue with anyone's decision of sexuality, as it is their's to make.  To compare homosexuals to a  pedophile, who's preference happens to be of the same gender, is sick, unwarranted and frankly, it's pathetically ignorant.  And to say you'd expect a  "gay mafia" to be in Ohio (hardy har har!) as well as to use the term "queer" in a clearly derogatory fashion is just as pathetic and ignorant.  Grow up and grow some balls.


September 20th, 2012 at 9:26 PM ^

but you are missing the point. The word queer is not a no no word in the gay community. If you call someone queer, it's acceptable. It's not like using the term "fag", or "homo", which are always offensive and never used within the community.

Also, I think the blurred line here is that Sandusky is a gay man... Period. He is also a pedophile. Those two distinctions must be acknowledged and not separated in his case. Obviously not all gay men are pedophiles just as all pedophiles are not straight, however, you can be one or both. In this case, Sandusky is both.


September 20th, 2012 at 10:00 PM ^

This term is controversial because it was reappropriated only two decades ago from its use as an anti-gay epithet. Furthermore, some LGBT people disapprove of using queer as a catch-all because they consider it offensive, derisive or self-deprecating given its continuous use as a form of hate speech. Other LGBT people may avoid queer because they associate it with political radicalism, or simply because they perceive it as the faddish slang of a "younger generation."

What you fail to realize, is that queer only recently was accepted back by the homosexual community (and clearly, not all have accepted it back). In the context of speaking about sexual orientation, it was at one point a purely derogatory term. Thusly, there are still homophobes who use it as such. So it's much more to it than "any term can be used in a derogatory context."

I think what may help you understand it a bit more, is that it is more akin to the use of the "n word." Like the gay community had done earlier with the word queer, the black community has tried to reclaim it to the point where use of the word amongst themselves is more accepted (in a sense) in everyday conversation. However, if someone from outside of that community tries to use that word in a clearly negative way, the meaning of the word defaults back to it's original derogatory definition. (disclaimer: I am black I still don't feel comfortable using the n word regularly).

So, when it comes to queer, you're kinda right, but CleverMichiganReference and I are right too, and the guy that was the reason for my initial comment and got booted is a douche, so let's leave it at that.

Mr Mxyzptlk

September 21st, 2012 at 7:03 AM ^

The gay friends I have might refer to each other as "queer" and mean it as a term of endearment, but would be offended if a stranger just showed up and started calling people queers.  Sort of like the "n" word can be acceptable among the African-American community.

Oops, didn't read jhender85's above post.  Pretty much same sentiment here.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 21st, 2012 at 8:53 AM ^

I have thought a lot about this and I'm not entirely sure I agree with that notion. I am not in anyway homophobic, I believe people's sexual preference is their own business and don't mind either way what that preference is.

What I wonder about is this idea that a persons sexuality isn't their decision. I mean...I agree that people don't necessarily choose who they are attracted to, but that isn't what defines a persons sexuality is it? Just becuase you are a ttracted to someone doesn't mean you have to have sex with that person. 

I would never consider myself to be homosexual or even bisexual (NTTAWWT) but I can admit when another man is attractive. I don't want to jump in bed with them, but they are attractive. I guess what I am saying is their sexuality is their decision, you have to make the choice just like a heterosexual makes the choice to sleep with a member of the opposite sex. I don't believe that a person is a homosexual just because they find members of the same sex attractive, but when they make the choice to engage in relations with them, then they become homosexuals.

I have an uncle who claims to be homosexual and I have had this discussion with him a few times and asked how the hell he knows he is a homosexual if he has never been in a same sex relationship before and actual had sex or even kissed another man. Sure he finds men attractive, but I would wager lots of heterosexual men do as well, it doesn't make them homosexuals in my opinion.

Anyway, that is just me thinknig out loud as this is something I have thought a lot about at various time and again, I have no problem with anyones sexual preference.


September 21st, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^

Yes, it's what defines sexuality. There's a big difference between acknowledging someone is attractive and being attracted to them. It's kind of insulting to minimize that difference because so many suffer the consequence of same sex attractions, often by early teenage years, before meeting your standard. Do they not count?

I have a homosexual uncle also, actually married 20 years + 3 kids before finally coming out. If I were to say "Why did you tell anyone? Not like it matters, you haven't been with a guy," I think he'd be horribly offended. I'd be acting like it's made no diff in his life ($100k in alimony later!) and it wasn't difficult to tell us.

Why would anyone admit to this unless he knew for sure? Having a partner isn't the only way to know either. If you're thinking of guys all the time, if you do "want to jump in bed with them," if you do...other stuff, that's a dead giveaway of being homosexual.

Back to lurking. Thanks for making lecture slightly less boring.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 21st, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^

I knew as I wrote my post that I wasn't saying what I wanted to say, it's a difficult discussion and one I can't eailsy find the words for when trying to present my point. The main point of my post was that I 1) don't think you can really consider yourself a homosexual unless you actually practice being homosexual (which you obviously disagree with, but such is life) and 2) that you have a choice.

Since I tried and failed to express why I felt that number 1 was the case I won't bother with that again, but for number two I simply believe you always have a choice in everything you do. There may not be two really good options, but there is always a choice. I acknowledge that this is only of consquence if you agree with my first point (which you don't) that a person isn't actually a homosexual until they actual induldge in a relationship, but that was the main focus of the above posts...that people don't have a choice in their sexuality. 


September 20th, 2012 at 5:35 PM ^

Hey guys this is MLive.  Have you seen one of our favorite posters?  He goes by the name of scottva1 and man is he HILARIOUS.   If you see him please send him back - we miss his witty repartee and highly enlightened view of human sexuality.



September 20th, 2012 at 5:31 PM ^

Its unfortunate that some of you chose to neg me over posting an article that is clearly marked OT, but is relevent to college football and the Big Ten.  Sorry to offend the forum police with this information...but this is a much more important story than fkin JL Smith's debts... and other shit posted over here.

If the mods have a problem...just delete this thread.  It is tiresome to keep battling the forum police over here...when clearly this posting falls within the guidelines of the mgoboard.


September 20th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^

Unfortunately I have to second that move Justin.  I 100% agree with the post and I'm glad he put it up.

But you just don't upvote yourself when you're facing some oppostion.  You just don't.  And for the record when you did it it was only running 2-4 against.  Not that bad really.

Edit: That's pretty silly Mr Mod who wacked my extremely tame avatar.  My wife in a bikini, showing absolutely nothing but a M bikini top at long range, is defintely sfmk.  Hell Mr Kass himself had no issue with it and liked that we were the only two people on the board who put pics of our wife up as our avatar.


September 21st, 2012 at 8:08 AM ^

The thing that bothers me most about this story is that it is surfacing 30 plus years after the fact and the potential offender is dead.  What are the chances that we will ever know the true story?

As far as letting the Penn State story die, I will gladly read a weekly thread about the tragedy if it means someone will have the courage to expose abuse somewhere else. 

French West Indian

September 21st, 2012 at 10:25 AM ^

...in the world than most people want to acknowledge.  So from that standpoint, I hardly see it as an irrelevant discussion to be taking place in any community.

And given the nature of college football, with its recruiting emphasis on young men (but still minors) and the many fans who drool over them, then it is certainly a relevant subject for discussion in football communities (such as this blog).  If some fans want to continue to live in a fairy tale world then they are welcome to step away after watching the games.  But for anyone who is interested enough to dig into forums like this is simply going to need the thick skin to accept the bad with the good.  There's just no getting around that.