the e-mails where the offending parties basically admitted to the cover up weren't "opinion". and that's all that needed to be released to get us where we are now. you can hate on the analysis in the freeh report all you want. but the part that's relevant is straight fact.
and i'm just getting caught up here, but i liked this post
newarenanow wrote:Fair or unfair, this is making an example. A universities FB (or insert other sport) programs are not worth protecting from a criminal act. If it happens, the price will be paid not only by the individuals hiding (I think they all should go to jail), but what you are protecting will be punished as well.
There are going to be a lot of innocent people affected by this, especially the current players, but that happens in a lot of punishments.
it makes me sad that the "why are you punishing innocent people?" argument is being attempted by actual adults.
You're totally right, bhaw, and if there wasn't the issue of the perjury cases the only thing you've got to go on is this independent investigation, it'd be the best option.
But as somebody else mentioned, what if the court returns not guilty verdicts? They'd have a serious mess on their hands.
Listen, , I'm not expecting not guilty verdicts. I don't expect the truth (that we'll never truly know) is that far from what has been put forward to this point. I'm just saying handing out punishments in this manner was the incorrect way. You're only halfway through the process.
Last edited by CBear3 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
shmenguin wrote:the e-mails where the offending parties basically admitted to the cover up weren't "opinion". and that's all that needed to be released to get us where we are now. you can hate on the analysis in the freeh report all you want. but the part that's relevant is straight fact.
and i'm just getting caught up here, but i liked this post
newarenanow wrote:Fair or unfair, this is making an example. A universities FB (or insert other sport) programs are not worth protecting from a criminal act. If it happens, the price will be paid not only by the individuals hiding (I think they all should go to jail), but what you are protecting will be punished as well.
There are going to be a lot of innocent people affected by this, especially the current players, but that happens in a lot of punishments.
it makes me sad that the "why are you punishing innocent people?" argument is being attempted by actual adults.
It's amazing how PSU, the students, the alumni, and now the big 4 are suddenly the victims. Some words are used too loosely in situations like this.
shmenguin wrote:the e-mails where the offending parties basically admitted to the cover up weren't "opinion". and that's all that needed to be released to get us where we are now. you can hate on the analysis in the freeh report all you want. but the part that's relevant is straight fact.
and i'm just getting caught up here, but i liked this post
newarenanow wrote:Fair or unfair, this is making an example. A universities FB (or insert other sport) programs are not worth protecting from a criminal act. If it happens, the price will be paid not only by the individuals hiding (I think they all should go to jail), but what you are protecting will be punished as well.
There are going to be a lot of innocent people affected by this, especially the current players, but that happens in a lot of punishments.
it makes me sad that the "why are you punishing innocent people?" argument is being attempted by actual adults.
It's amazing how PSU, the students, the alumni, and now the big 4 are suddenly the victims. Some words are used too loosely in situations like this.
Agreed. This punishment has no tangible effect on any of these groups. The one small segment it does is the football players, who have some consolation as they can transfer.
bhaw wrote:It's amazing how PSU, the students, the alumni, and now the big 4 are suddenly the victims. Some words are used too loosely in situations like this.
it's certainly not PSU-specific. people are like that all over the place. it's just such a child-like way to look at things to think that it's unfair to punish the program. those who did wrong and the athletic program as a whole are intertwined. it's simple. not to mention that taking away scholarships (which punishes the innocent victims!!!!) has always been normal practice by the NCAA even though only a small group of people are always responsible for whatever happened.
MWB wrote:Freeh tried to interview him, but he declined on advice of legal counsel, I believe.
Yes, this makes sense, of course. But could his attorney have allowed him to be interviewed but with agreed-upon parameters? But, then again what would be the point if the parameters were Rosenhaus-like: "Next question..." Plus, he'd likely appear disingenuous. (Likely, I've watched too much "Law and Order" over the last 20 years.)
MWB wrote:Freeh tried to interview him, but he declined on advice of legal counsel, I believe.
Yes, this makes sense, of course. But could his attorney have allowed him to be interviewed but with agreed-upon parameters? But, then again what would be the point if the parameters were Rosenhaus-like: "Next question..." Plus, he'd likely appear disingenuous. (Likely, I've watched too much "Law and Order" over the last 20 years.)
shmenguin wrote:the e-mails where the offending parties basically admitted to the cover up weren't "opinion". and that's all that needed to be released to get us where we are now. you can hate on the analysis in the freeh report all you want. but the part that's relevant is straight fact.
and i'm just getting caught up here, but i liked this post
newarenanow wrote:Fair or unfair, this is making an example. A universities FB (or insert other sport) programs are not worth protecting from a criminal act. If it happens, the price will be paid not only by the individuals hiding (I think they all should go to jail), but what you are protecting will be punished as well.
There are going to be a lot of innocent people affected by this, especially the current players, but that happens in a lot of punishments.
it makes me sad that the "why are you punishing innocent people?" argument is being attempted by actual adults.
It's amazing how PSU, the students, the alumni, and now the big 4 are suddenly the victims. Some words are used too loosely in situations like this.
JoePa and Sandusky's acts are still a reflection of the school itself. What were they expecting? "Yeah we know we have Sandusky in jail and JoePa is no longer around, so let's just knock off a scholarship or two for a year"? As much as I see people saying "The punishment is too much", or "those kids on the field weren't guilty", etc., unfortunately this is the point of punishment. You make the punishment so harsh that you cringe at the thought of what would happen if you were caught.
Was today's punishment harsh? Absolutely.
Do I have a problem with it? Not at all. Again, that's the point of punishment.
MWB wrote:Freeh tried to interview him, but he declined on advice of legal counsel, I believe.
Yes, this makes sense, of course. But could his attorney have allowed him to be interviewed but with agreed-upon parameters? But, then again what would be the point if the parameters were Rosenhaus-like: "Next question..." Plus, he'd likely appear disingenuous. (Likely, I've watched too much "Law and Order" over the last 20 years.)
Penn State University global warming researcher Michael Mann is lawyering up to counter attacks by conservatives who have referred to him as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.
Mann’s lawyer wrote Friday to National Review Executive Publisher Scott Budd demanding a retraction and apology for a July 15 blog post that compares Penn State’s mishandling of years of child sexual abuse to the university’s investigation of “Climategate.”
Penn State University global warming researcher Michael Mann is lawyering up to counter attacks by conservatives who have referred to him as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.
Mann’s lawyer wrote Friday to National Review Executive Publisher Scott Budd demanding a retraction and apology for a July 15 blog post that compares Penn State’s mishandling of years of child sexual abuse to the university’s investigation of “Climategate.”
Penn State University global warming researcher Michael Mann is lawyering up to counter attacks by conservatives who have referred to him as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.
Mann’s lawyer wrote Friday to National Review Executive Publisher Scott Budd demanding a retraction and apology for a July 15 blog post that compares Penn State’s mishandling of years of child sexual abuse to the university’s investigation of “Climategate.”
MWB wrote:Did PSU work with the NCAA on the timing of this? Or did the NCAA just say they were going to do it and PSU went along?
I thought I heard that if Erickson didn't give the go ahead on this, that the NCAA would conduct their own investigation and PSU would be facing up to a 4 year death penalty.
I'm just wondering if PSU met with the NCAA and said, "Look, we know we messed up and that we're going to be punished. If you get it over with quickly and the punishment isn't deemed to extreme by us, we won't challenge it." It might be a little more excessive than they would like, but I imagine PSU wanted this over with as quickly as possible. How bad would it be for them to have this drag out over the next year as they await an NCAA investigation and/or perjury trials?
You mean take time to conduct your own investigation and to think clearly about the implications of your actions after the emotional ****storm has passed and the pitchforks have been put away?
MWB wrote:How would an NCAA investigation be different than the Freeh investigation (aside from taking months and months and months)?
For some people PSU hiring Freeh the former director of the FBI, seeing the grand jury investigation, and the results of the criminal trial are still not enough proof to say that this is all just opinion. Freeh isn't some hack, grand jury's are incredibly thorough, and a trial has agreed with evidence provided by that grand jury. Unbelievable that people are saying there should have been another investigation, this wasn't a court of law so quit treating it like it was one.
MWB wrote:How would an NCAA investigation be different than the Freeh investigation (aside from taking months and months and months)?
PSU would be given a notice of allegations, a hearing and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
They had that chance and they signed off on everything in the investigations already done as truth in essence waiving their hearing and opportunity to respond.
, I'm not expecting not guilty verdicts. I don't expect the truth (that we'll never truly know) is that far from what has been put forward to this point. I'm just saying handing out punishments in this manner was the incorrect way. You're only halfway through the process.
