dlq04

I know that. . . . it is always about the money and/or egos

Zippy

sad but true money=power. Money comes from endowments, and embarrassed and unhappy alumni tend to give less.

Bass

i'd like to see those who suppoted Paterno in this thread come back and state their thoughts now that the truth is out.. ie aashish (A2)

trapper

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...e=domesticNews

Lainey

Just re-read the thread. Looks like I don't need to order any crow at dinner. I believe I said cover up from the beginning. It's all about CYA and of course, the $$$.

raymo19

**
It's a heated arguement, I get it, but knock it off with the personal attacks.
**
-Mocky

A 2

why the hell am I being called out? and why must my name be the subject of abuse (this being the second time raymo's called me an ass hat)? Is it wrong to hold a slightly contrary opinion. Why not vilify people for their political or religious beliefs and punish them for their thoughts.

They failed to protect the children, that was never disputed. Whether that failure was due to Paterno's desire to save the college football program or because he lacked the will or training to recognize a serious abuse or whether he felt he had done his part (however inadequate) by reporting up is only something he knows. Sandusky got less than he deserved in my opinion and perhaps his guilt sent Paterno to his death.

In any case I am done with this thread and with the Vintage forum. Hope you guys feel good about yourselves.

dean

I do - quite often in fact - when I find those beliefs to be ethically and morally repugnant, and/or harmful to others. And as to your claim that no one knows what he or she would do in the same situation as Paterno, I can tell you from personal experience that claim is bullshit. I know precisely what I would do and did. So much for that presumption.

Also bullshit. Paterno was a willing participant and a primary instigator in an attempt at a coverup. An all around, real swell guy.

raymo19

Er...aah..you were one of Paterno's staunchest defenders way back then. The facts now seem to make your contrarian opinion ludircrous at best now don't you think?
Anyway bye bye.

RedOne2007

For some facts: In 1998, the (non-sexual) shower event was thoroughly investigated. A Department of Public Welfare counselor wrote that he saw no evidence of pedophile behavior in Sandusky. That report is what caused the DA to drop the investigation, as he knew the defense would bring that up in any trial and get Sandusky off. (This is in Freeh's report)

Many of you have very strong convictions of what you would have done. Easy to say now. You probably haven't worked with lawyers. I have, and I can l tell you that PSU's lawyers at that point would have warned against doing anything against Sandusky - no arrest, no conviction and a report saying he's not a pedophile. And at this point his foundation has worked with kids for 21 years.

The real question to me is why did PSU allow this guy to hang around after his retirement? He should have been persona non grata, if not in 1999 then certainly after the 2001 incident. While all PSU had were stories at that point, that should have been enough - even if they couldn't have done anything legally. Remember, there was a kid's testimony in 1998 and the DA dropped it. In 2001, there was just a (reprehensible) story. But, no victim and no evidence. I'm not so sure the DA would have gone after that one either.

But how they allowed this guy to hang around is what is beyond me.

As for JoePa, the report makes the other 3 to be the worse culprits, although that could be due to lack of evidence. Those 3 seem more culpable to me. What I mean is that JoePa could have survived any scandal had he come forward about Sandusky. He would have been immune. But Spanier and company were far more dependent on PSU and its largesse and would be much more worried about that being in jeopardy.

But who knows now. I'll leave JoePa's fate to God.