The Freeh report is out on the Penn State abuse investigation.

[Checkmite]

Unless there's a way to interpret the publishes emails in a way that does not indicate a discussion of Sandusky and eventually an agreement to keep quiet, I don't see much room for error in this case.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Unless there's a way to interpret the publishes emails in a way that does not indicate a discussion of Sandusky and eventually an agreement to keep quiet, I don't see much room for error in this case.

Plus (again) Penn State did not contest a single finding in Freeh's report.

[yodaluver28]

Originally Posted by halides1

With respect to some other comments here, only Mr. Sandusky stands convicted of criminal acts, not anyone else at PSU. Therefore, actions taken on the basis criminal conspiracies are premature, IMO.

This action wasn't taken because there was a criminal conspiracy, although there probably was one, but because of the complete and utter lack of responsible institutional control the university had over it's football program and that clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the NCAA. Even Penn State agreed with this and had no intention of appealing or trying to defend the actions in question.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Child rape, the extensive institutional coverup thereof, and the fact that the NCAA recognized that the Freeh investigation was as thorough, if not more so, than anything they themselves could or would have done.

There is no comparison whatsoever between Cam Newton's dad wanting money for his son to play, and the decade-long concealment of serial child rape by everyone at Penn State from the president to Paterno and on down.


And, as a private, voluntary association, the NCAA doesn't need to wait for any convictions in the criminal justice system. Not to mention (and this is the most important part), Penn State themselves agree.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by halides1

Babbylonian,

It should make no difference from whom the opinion comes. With respect to the Freeh report, is there a mechanism for formal rebuttal? If not, any discussion of how thorough it supposedly is, is hollow.

The Freeh report wasn't commissioned by the NCAA but by the university itself, the party with the most to gain from whitewashing the incident. The fact that it was so damning to their case and that they deny none of it speaks volumes for it's veracity as does the collection of documents found by the commission and cited in the report.

Originally Posted by halides1

Of all of the arguments I have heard today, this notion (ANTPogo gave a similar argument) is among the least convincing that what the NCAA did was right. If Penn State had objected on the basis that the NCAA overstepped its authority, would anyone have listened to them? Based on my reading of this thread, I think that they would have been pilloried for seeming to wish to escape punishment for child abuse. Again and again, the NCAA did not follow its own rules.

The NCAA is following it's own rules. The NCAA made the statement about the rules before the Freeh report was released and the depth of the loss of institutional control became clear. Before that, it was a grey area for them. Once it was established that there had been a long, deliberate coverup by several of the most powerful people on campus while keeping the oversight board in the dark, the NCAA not only had authority to act under it's rules but an obligation to do so.

Originally Posted by halides1

No, but there was a coverup.

A coverup by one or two people is bad but a coverup by more than half a dozen people for well over a decade, when they knew that the criminal would acquire more victims as a direct result of their inaction, is inexcusable and must be harshly punished no matter how any other incidents were handled in the past.

Originally Posted by halides1

By one or more coaches (only one murder). Sorry, I am not an expert in the Baylor case.

If you're not an expert on the case, perhaps you shouldn't try to use it to score a point.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

To be fair, only because they would be wishing to escape punishment for child abuse.

Nonsense. IMO Everyone governed by the NCAA should be worried by the behavior of its leadership. That argument would have to come from other institutions, not Penn State.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Plus (again) Penn State did not contest a single finding in Freeh's report.

Again, they were caught between a rock and a hard place.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by yodaluver28

If you're not an expert on the case, perhaps you shouldn't try to use it to score a point.

Perhaps you should argue the issue itself, as opposed to making a deflection.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by yodaluver28

The NCAA is following it's own rules.

It closer to the truth to say that the NCAA is stretching the bejesus out of vague verbiage in their bylaws. Their own FAQ notes that this procedure was irregular and tries to justify it. All cites given upthread.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by halides1

Nonsense. IMO Everyone governed by the NCAA should be worried by the behavior of its leadership.

If they don't like it, they're free to leave the NCAA. Maybe even form their own association.

Originally Posted by halides1

Again, they were caught between a rock and a hard place.

No, they weren't. They were caught in a situation entirely of their own making, and they knew it.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Unless there's a way to interpret the publishes emails in a way that does not indicate a discussion of Sandusky and eventually an agreement to keep quiet, I don't see much room for error in this case.

It is surprising that no one in this thread has yet linked to John Ziegler's article. My interest in this case is less about whether Paterno really knew a great deal and tried to cover up, but instead more about whether or not principles of due process are being followed.

[Checkmite]

The NCAA is not the court system and doesn't "owe" anyone due process; but even in the court system, accused individuals are allowed to waive due process and plead guilty outright. That is analogous to what PSU has done.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The NCAA is not the court system and doesn't "owe" anyone due process; but even in the court system, accused individuals are allowed to waive due process and plead guilty outright. That is analogous to what PSU has done.

I never said that the NCAA was the court system (the use of the word "principles" in my previous was intended to convey this). I have said that it should have followed its own procedures, and I implied that Mr. Emmert was probably more interested in the image of the NCAA than anything else. I have also indicated that it would have been preferable to have heard more than Mr. Freeh's version of the events before the NCAA imposed sanctions. I agree with this sentiment: "Or as Yahoo Sports' Pat Forde said: 'Emmert seems determined to go where no NCAA president has gone before.'" MOO.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by yodaluver28

The Freeh report wasn't commissioned by the NCAA but by the university itself, the party with the most to gain from whitewashing the incident. The fact that it was so damning to their case and that they deny none of it speaks volumes for it's veracity as does the collection of documents found by the commission and cited in the report.

Nonsense. They cannot contest the report without seeming to condone horrific acts. The Freeh Report may be right or wrong, but others have to examine it. Penn State's response is irrelevant to that question.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by halides1

I have also indicated that it would have been preferable to have heard more than Mr. Freeh's version of the events before the NCAA imposed sanctions.

The "other side of the story" is already present, in the form of Spanier's, Curley's, the other guy's, and even the late Joe Paterno's, testimony before the grand jury in the Sandusky case - because they were asked about all these things, under oath. Freeh's independent investigation was a rebuttal of their testimony. Now what...you think there should be an independent investigation to fact-check the independent investigation? Do you think perhaps there might be another independent investigation to verify that one? How far down the stack of turtles is it reasonable to go?

How long has it been since Spanier and Paterno were fired? Several months. That doesn't sound to me like "rushed action" on the part of the NCAA.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by halides1

Babbylonian,

It should make no difference from whom the opinion comes. With respect to the Freeh report, is there a mechanism for formal rebuttal? If not, any discussion of how thorough it supposedly is, is hollow.

Formal rebuttal by whom? Paterno? Sandusky? Penn State?

Formal rebuttal *to* whom? The media?

It is a report, not a debate topic.

If it contains deliberate lies that have maliciously harmed some innocent person, an attorney can explain to them how to rebut it.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by halides1

It is surprising that no one in this thread has yet linked to John Ziegler's article.

I'm not surprised at all. Citing Ziegler is like citing WND. Entertainment value only. [SNIP]

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comment

[tyr_13]

Penn State officials did what they did to protect their football program. This football program brought them prestige, money, and power. These are strong incentives for this type of wrong doing. The NCAA has to combat this because it's their program too. Their reputation, prestige, money, and power is injured by such acts in addition to such acts being morally repugnant and illegal. It's their association that helped give those Penn State officials both the power to do what they did, and the incentive to do so, so it's their job to help correct it.

What was a reason to hide the rapes? Money from their NCAA football program. NCAA has every right, reason, and justification to make such cover ups worse than exposing it.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

You were using that criticism against posts arguing for dismantling the football program. If you refuse to clear up your contradictory statements it's no skin off my back. However, lying about what I defended is an issue. You're wrong about what I defended. You're wrong that it was dishonest to point out your apparent contradictions. If you refuse to discuss this in good faith, perhaps it is best that you don't discuss it at all.

Again, that is a deliberate falsehood on your part.
I made no such arguments against dismantling the program, I'm one of the ones calling for it to be dismantled and more.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...45#post8458945
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...47#post8451347
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...57#post8451357

You've been called on your lies, and this will be the last time I respond to your transparent attempts to derail the thread with those lies.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I'm not surprised at all. Citing Ziegler is like citing WND. Entertainment value only. [SNIP]

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comment

I have no clue who he is, I'm just interested in whether this is accurate:

Originally Posted by Ziegler 7/12/12

The most glaring omission in the report is that Freeh did speak to any of the primary witnesses in the case. Not Paterno. Not Tim Curley. Not Mike McQueary (whom he referred to as “McQuade” in the press conference). Not Jerry Sandusky.

I'm guessing that paragraph is missing a negative between 'did' and 'speak.' If that's the case, shouldn't the fact that the investigator didn't speak to these people be of interest? If not, why not?

It sounds like you've been following this closely and I have not, thus I'm just curious why this would be.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Penn State officials did what they did to protect their football program. This football program brought them prestige, money, and power. These are strong incentives for this type of wrong doing. The NCAA has to combat this because it's their program too. Their reputation, prestige, money, and power is injured by such acts in addition to such acts being morally repugnant and illegal. It's their association that helped give those Penn State officials both the power to do what they did, and the incentive to do so, so it's their job to help correct it.

What was a reason to hide the rapes? Money from their NCAA football program. NCAA has every right, reason, and justification to make such cover ups worse than exposing it.

Were this to happen in any other department on a college campus, would you support such draconian measures? If the physics department had an employee doing the exact same thing and it was covered up the same way should they be denied any federal funding?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by halides1

Nonsense. IMO Everyone governed by the NCAA should be worried by the behavior of its leadership. That argument would have to come from other institutions, not Penn State.

And what has that got to do with the "punishment" (yeah right) being handed out to the university?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by halides1

Again, they were caught between a rock and a hard place.

No - the actions and non-actions of the university president, head coach, board of trustees, associate coaches, janitors and so on placed the university between a rock and hard place.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by halides1

Nonsense. They cannot contest the report without seeming to condone horrific acts. The Freeh Report may be right or wrong, but others have to examine it. Penn State's response is irrelevant to that question.

I've read the entire report, aside from the recommendations all the facts quoted in the report are sourced by documentation from the university (much of which the university was unaware of). The facts of the multiple instances of child abuse have been shown to be accurate beyond the level of reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.

Which areas of the report do you think are inaccurate, factually wrong and so on?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Were this to happen in any other department on a college campus, would you support such draconian measures? If the physics department had an employee doing the exact same thing and it was covered up the same way should they be denied any federal funding?

Apples and oranges.

How many physics departments are getting millions from TV appearances as a feeder network into the big time of drugs, girls, dog fighting, and gun toting entourages? How many have their own venal feeder programs going back even younger than high school?

How many physics departments are paying trainers to work out regimens of performance enhancing drugs and plans to avoid detection? How many have cheerleaders tied into the whole frat boy/sorority/rohypnol rite of passage schema?

How many physics department chairs are calling other professors, and 'urging' them to take it easy grade and attendance wise so that the school can win the next big competition?

No, the reality is that the whole culture of competitive sports made this crime and its coverup what it was, and that culture will self repair unless something drastic is done... which it appears has not occured here.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Darat

And what has that got to do with the "punishment" (yeah right) being handed out to the university?

IIUC at many universities, revenues from the football and/or basketball programs help to fund the other sports programs because these programs are the only athletic ones that generate money. I have given several citations that indicated that this process was not the normal one for the NCAA--even its own FAQ web page acknowledges this. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why their own procedures were somehow not up to the job. I think that the NCAA was wrong to bypass them (and Penn State was stupid to agree to to it). Here is one more critique of the NCAA:

"Anne D. Neal, the president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, criticized the NCAA's unilateral action, saying it represented 'a cynical and dangerous power-grab." She said the problem is the NCAA is "a council of presidents' and its own rules prevent university boards of trustees to provide checks and balances 'which challenge the ambitions of coaches, athletic directors and presidents'"

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Darat

I've read the entire report, aside from the recommendations all the facts quoted in the report are sourced by documentation from the university (much of which the university was unaware of). The facts of the multiple instances of child abuse have been shown to be accurate beyond the level of reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.

Which areas of the report do you think are inaccurate, factually wrong and so on?

No one is disputing that child abuse took place, but punishing child abuse is not the domain of the NCAA any more than punishing murder is, a point I have made several times upthread. My point is that Spanier and presumably others dispute the report, yet there has been only a very short time period between the release of the report and the announcement of sanctions.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I'm not surprised at all. Citing Ziegler is like citing WND. Entertainment value only. [SNIP]

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comment

The nicest thing I can say about your comment is that it is a total fail as an argument. Ziegler wrote, "The report seems to prove (much more conclusively than it does other elements) that Sandusky being told that he would never be the head coach at Penn State had nothing to do with any allegations of sexual abuse. In fact, Paterno told him this before the 1998 investigation even began and his own hand written notes make it clear that the reason was because Sandusky, ironically, refused to give up his position as the head of the Second Mile charity..." Agree or disagree?

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Darat

I've read the entire report, aside from the recommendations all the facts quoted in the report are sourced by documentation from the university (much of which the university was unaware of). The facts of the multiple instances of child abuse have been shown to be accurate beyond the level of reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.

Which areas of the report do you think are inaccurate, factually wrong and so on?

It is the secondary nature of the evidence that is unsettling. Ziegler wrote, "One plausible alternative scenario which has not even been considered by the mainstream media is that Curley, much like he may have done in 2001 in the 'after speaking with Joe' email, could have easily had a habit of invoking Paterno's name to bolster the case for what he wanted."

[Darat]

Originally Posted by halides1

...snip...

I think I better understand where you are coming from but I couldn't give one iota about some voluntary agreed changes to the sporting activities of the university. That is not any form of "punishment" as far as I can see for the harm caused to many children because of the terrible arrogance, incompetence and callousness of the university staff and culture.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by halides1

No one is disputing that child abuse took place, but punishing child abuse is not the domain of the NCAA any more than punishing murder is, a point I have made several times upthread. My point is that Spanier and presumably others dispute the report, yet there has been only a very short time period between the release of the report and the announcement of sanctions.

Totally agree so what's your objection to the voluntary agreed upon changes to the universities sports activities in this thread i.e. the thread about the report about the abuse that the university and staff allowed to happen to many years. Perhaps starting a thread in the "Sports" section would be the appropriate place to discuss your disquiet with a sporting body and its members?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by halides1

It is the secondary nature of the evidence that is unsettling. Ziegler wrote, "One plausible alternative scenario which has not even been considered by the mainstream media is that Curley, much like he may have done in 2001 in the 'after speaking with Joe' email, could have easily had a habit of invoking Paterno's name to bolster the case for what he wanted."

If you had read the report you would have had access to the primary evidence that is incompatible with such an explanation. The report is not that long, I read it over the course of a few nights, perhaps you should read it before you start to criticise it?

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Darat

Totally agree so what's your objection to the voluntary agreed upon changes to the universities sports activities in this thread i.e. the thread about the report about the abuse that the university and staff allowed to happen to many years. Perhaps starting a thread in the "Sports" section would be the appropriate place to discuss your disquiet with a sporting body and its members?

A thread which detailed all aspects of misguided NCAA policy might be rather long, but I am trying to confine myself to the case at hand versus other incidents the NCAA has investigated. In brief, my objections are (1) The NCAA bypassed its usual procedure, despite not having done so with respect to the murder at Baylor and subsequent false story. (2) There has been very little time (and perhaps no mechanism) to dispute the findings of the Freeh report. (3) The NCAA has set a questionable precedent for itself with this incident, and one that is at odds with its prior actions. IMO the NCAA should stick to punishing violations of its rules.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Darat

If you had read the report you would have had access to the primary evidence that is incompatible with such an explanation. The report is not that long, I read it over the course of a few nights, perhaps you should read it before you start to criticise it?

Former PSU present Spanier disputes the Freeh report, saying that it is full of errors. "'It is unfathomable and illogical to think that a respected family sociologist and family therapist, someone who personally experienced massive and persistent abuse as a child, someone who devoted a significant portion of his career to the welfare of children and youth, including service on the boards of four such organizations, two as chair of the board, would have knowingly turned a blind eye to any report of child abuse or predatory sexual acts directed at children,' Spanier wrote to trustees." Even if I were to state that the Freeh report is perfect, that has no bearing on the question of why the NCAA chose to bypass its own procedures and invoke a vague by-law to justify its actions.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by halides1

It is the secondary nature of the evidence that is unsettling. Ziegler wrote, "One plausible alternative scenario which has not even been considered by the mainstream media is that Curley, much like he may have done in 2001 in the 'after speaking with Joe' email, could have easily had a habit of invoking Paterno's name to bolster the case for what he wanted."

Whether or not; you've still got emails in which the administration of the athletic department and the university reach a decision to not turn in a serial child molester. Excusing Paterno even for the sake of argument doesn't actually change the big picture.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by halides1

Former PSU present Spanier disputes the Freeh report, saying that it is full of errors. "'It is unfathomable and illogical to think that a respected family sociologist and family therapist, someone who personally experienced massive and persistent abuse as a child, someone who devoted a significant portion of his career to the welfare of children and youth, including service on the boards of four such organizations, two as chair of the board, would have knowingly turned a blind eye to any report of child abuse or predatory sexual acts directed at children,' Spanier wrote to trustees."

...snip...

Yet he did - the documentary evidence shows that he knew about the alleged (and now confirmed abuse) and did not take anything that could be considered appropriate action. Also of course if the above is somehow true then it only cements his gross incompetence to head any institute.

Originally Posted by halides1

Even if I were to state that the Freeh report is perfect, that has no bearing on the question of why the NCAA chose to bypass its own procedures and invoke a vague by-law to justify its actions.

This thread is about the Freeh report not about a sporting body. Can we get back to discussing the actual report?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Were this to happen in any other department on a college campus, would you support such draconian measures? If the physics department had an employee doing the exact same thing and it was covered up the same way should they be denied any federal funding?

If the power structure and money dynamic produced the culture and incentive, yes. That's unlikely to happen though, and isn't what happened here. There have been science departments torn apart for less. But we were discussing the NCAA not federal funding no?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Were this to happen in any other department on a college campus, would you support such draconian measures? If the physics department had an employee doing the exact same thing and it was covered up the same way should they be denied any federal funding?

Absolutely, the number of physics scholarships should be cut in half, all money gained from mass exhibitions of physics should be forfeited and the school should not be allowed to compete in any post season physics games.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by halides1

Former PSU present Spanier disputes the Freeh report, saying that it is full of errors. "'It is unfathomable and illogical to think that a respected family sociologist and family therapist, someone who personally experienced massive and persistent abuse as a child, someone who devoted a significant portion of his career to the welfare of children and youth, including service on the boards of four such organizations, two as chair of the board, would have knowingly turned a blind eye to any report of child abuse or predatory sexual acts directed at children,' Spanier wrote to trustees." Even if I were to state that the Freeh report is perfect, that has no bearing on the question of why the NCAA chose to bypass its own procedures and invoke a vague by-law to justify its actions.

You're claiming that you can interpret NCAA rules better than they can?

[halides1]

Originally Posted by tsig

You're claiming that you can interpret NCAA rules better than they can?

I gave the text of the bylaw in message #348. "Vague" is my characterization, but "nebulous" is Mr. Mandel's.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The NCAA rules allow this kind of action as already described in this post. The NCAA was following its own rules.

I am grateful for the links in Babblyonian's message. Your interpretation of "following its own rules" is different from mine, and I am prepared to leave it at that (Darat's comments imply that the NCAA is tangential to the discussion of the Freeh report). Here is what the NCAA said in its FAQ:
"Why didn’t this go through the normal enforcement/infractions process?
The circumstances involved in the Penn State matter are unlike any encountered by the NCAA in its history. Because Penn State accepted the factual findings of the Freeh Report, which the university itself commissioned, the NCAA determined that traditional investigative and administrative proceedings would be duplicative and unnecessary. Additionally, the egregiousness of the conduct is unprecedented and amounts to a breach of the NCAA Constitution, bylaws and core values of intercollegiate athletics, based on the findings of the Freeh Report and Sandusky criminal trial. This spurred the Executive Committee to act pursuant to its authority under the NCAA Constitution and Bylaw Provision 4.1.2(e) to resolve core issues of Association-wide import."

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by halides1

"This spurred the Executive Committee to act pursuant to its authority under the NCAA Constitution and Bylaw Provision 4.1.2(e) to resolve core issues of Association-wide import."

In other words, the NCAA was following its own rules.