X Penn State President, VP and AD get jail time

[northgajacket]

Somebody needs to lay off of this:

 

[Vespid]

You can put all you faith in the Free report. I read enough to take that report with a huge grain of salt and a bug question mark regarding his agenda.

I don't think faith has anything to do with it. A list of key supporting FACTS, backed up by a stack of incriminating emails between school administrators, coach's and campus police is a freight car full of salt. But everybody is certainly entitled to an opinion.

 

[northgajacket]

You can put all you faith in the Free report. I read enough to take that report with a huge grain of salt and a bug question mark regarding his agenda.

So instead we should put our faith in the reports compiled by investigators who were HIRED BY THE PATERNO"S , who are desperate because they had planned on living off of Joe's name for the rest of their lives so they try to clear his name.

 

[RonJohn]

Well, the NCAA disagrees with your interpretation. Count 1 in the findings and conclusions of the NCAA criminal jury in regards to the case stated that not only was there inadequate controls, in some instances they were non-existent. The following is verbatim from the Binding Consent Decree Imposed by the NCAA, which was accepted and signed by Penn State.

" 1. A failure to value and uphold institutional integrity demonstrated by inadequate, and in some cases non-existent, controls and oversight surrounding the athletics program of the University, such as those controls prescribed by Articles 2.1 (The Principle of Institutional Control), 6.01.1 (Institutional Control) and 6.4 (Responsibility for Actions of Outside Entities) of the NCAA Constitution. "

The FREEH report, a mere 267 pages and the BINDING CONSENT DECREE are readily available on the net. If you look at the major key findings and the time line of key supporting facts in the report, which is only a few pages for each, and compare those with the responsibilities spelled out in the NCAA's Constitution and Bylaws Articles as referenced in Count 1, it's pretty clear, at least to me, NCAA rules were not only broken but ignored by the school. And I agree with you, three months in Jail is a little short for Spanier, Shultz and Curley.

I have read those sections of the NCAA Division 1 Manual. Section 2.1 states that it is the responsibility of the member institutions to control their athletics programs in compliance with NCAA rules and regulations. Section 6.01.1 states basically that the institutions and the conferences are what form institutional control. Section 6.4 states that the institutions are responsible for any person or organization that "is promoting the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program". The Division 1 Manual, nor any other document that I have read from the NCAA specifically states that child molestation or any other criminal activity is against the NCAA regulations. Section 1.2 lists 9 purposes of the NCAA and the regulations manual. They are all about regulating sports activities and fairness in college athletics.(My summation, the actual purposes are more detailed). Everything describing institutional control, including the NCAA's own summary www.ncaa.org/governance/institutional-control , describes control measures to ensure compliance with NCAA rules. There is no description of a general "out of control" situation. BTW, those sections are only about a page and a half in total, not difficult to read.

The consent decree was signed by Penn State. Had Penn State contested the NCAA, they could not have been found non-compliant based on the text of the regulations. Terrible things happened at Penn State, but they were criminal acts, not acts against NCAA rules. The NCAA basically caved when the Penn State Trustees voted to vacate the consent decree. The consent decree is no longer active. The NCAA restored the wins vacated by the consent decree. The NCAA restored the scholarships stripped by the consent decree. It is no longer a valid agreement.

I did not read the Freeh report. My understanding is that it is a document that details legal analysis and recommendations for the school to ensure that nothing like this happens again.

I would challenge you to find what NCAA regulation was violated in this case. There were no recruiting violations. There were no impermissible benefits to student-athletes. There were no extra practices. There were no performance enhancing drugs. Those things might have happened at Penn State during this time frame, but if they did, they were not directly related to Sandusky. This was a criminal matter, and the NCAA should have stayed out of the way while the police and criminal authorities nailed the pervert and his enablers to the wall.

 

[Vespid]

I have read those sections of the NCAA Division 1 Manual. Section 2.1 states that it is the responsibility of the member institutions to control their athletics programs in compliance with NCAA rules and regulations. Section 6.01.1 states basically that the institutions and the conferences are what form institutional control. Section 6.4 states that the institutions are responsible for any person or organization that "is promoting the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program". The Division 1 Manual, nor any other document that I have read from the NCAA specifically states that child molestation or any other criminal activity is against the NCAA regulations. Section 1.2 lists 9 purposes of the NCAA and the regulations manual. They are all about regulating sports activities and fairness in college athletics.(My summation, the actual purposes are more detailed). Everything describing institutional control, including the NCAA's own summary www.ncaa.org/governance/institutional-control , describes control measures to ensure compliance with NCAA rules. There is no description of a general "out of control" situation. BTW, those sections are only about a page and a half in total, not difficult to read.

The consent decree was signed by Penn State. Had Penn State contested the NCAA, they could not have been found non-compliant based on the text of the regulations. Terrible things happened at Penn State, but they were criminal acts, not acts against NCAA rules. The NCAA basically caved when the Penn State Trustees voted to vacate the consent decree. The consent decree is no longer active. The NCAA restored the wins vacated by the consent decree. The NCAA restored the scholarships stripped by the consent decree. It is no longer a valid agreement.

I did not read the Freeh report. My understanding is that it is a document that details legal analysis and recommendations for the school to ensure that nothing like this happens again.

I would challenge you to find what NCAA regulation was violated in this case. There were no recruiting violations. There were no impermissible benefits to student-athletes. There were no extra practices. There were no performance enhancing drugs. Those things might have happened at Penn State during this time frame, but if they did, they were not directly related to Sandusky. This was a criminal matter, and the NCAA should have stayed out of the way while the police and criminal authorities nailed the pervert and his enablers to the wall.

Well, I don't have all night to research an argument to retry the case, but without very much effort an argument could be made that they violated 19.01.2. There's not single a single thing in by-law 19.01.2 about recruiting violations, impermissible benefits, practice schedules or performance enhancing drugs. If you'd like to present an argument that they did not violate 19.01.2, be my guest.

The NCAA did not restore all the scholarships stripped in the consent decree, nor did they retroactively nullify the penalties that had taken place up to the time they amended the penalty structure, excepting the reinstatement of the vacated victories. Penn State had faced a cap of 65 scholarships starting in 2014, but instead had 75 scholarships in 2014, 80 in 2015 and the full allotment of 85 in 2016. They also reduced the original four year bowl ban. Emmert insisted the reductions didn't come because the original sanctions were deemed too severe, but that the sanctions were reduced because Penn State had aggressively with good faith instituted the recommendations outlined in the Freeh report. Penn State was still on the hook for the 60 million, just the details of where the fine proceeds where appropriated was amended.

We can debate for a millennia whether or not the NCAA had jurisdiction to impose sanctions regarding the Sandusky scandal. I think they did, you think they didn't. Fair enough. The end result is they did impose sanctions, albeit amended ones, and PSU complied.

 

[RonJohn]

Well, I don't have all night to research an argument to retry the case, but without very much effort an argument could be made that they violated 19.01.2. There's not single a single thing in by-law 19.01.2 about recruiting violations, impermissible benefits, practice schedules or performance enhancing drugs. If you'd like to present an argument that they did not violate 19.01.2, be my guest.

What part of that did they violate? It says that they must hold everyone accountable to the NCAA constitution and bylaws. There is not a single thing in 19.02.2 about criminal laws or moral ethics. The NCAA exists to regulate athletic competition and behavior. I don't think they do a very good job at that. There are existing mechanisms in place to handle criminal behavior. Those mechanisms have the ability to use deadly force to compel compliance. Those mechanisms have the ability to take freedom away from the offenders and lock them up. In a case like Baylor, I would say that both criminal law was broken and potentially extra benefits were given to athletes. In such a case, all who committed crimes up to potentially Art Briles, should be held criminally responsible for their actions. Also, if any extra benefits were given to the athletes such as legal representation, the athletic department should be held responsible to the NCAA.

 

[Vespid]

What part of that did they violate? It says that they must hold everyone accountable to the NCAA constitution and bylaws. There is not a single thing in 19.02.2 about criminal laws or moral ethics. The NCAA exists to regulate athletic competition and behavior. I don't think they do a very good job at that. There are existing mechanisms in place to handle criminal behavior. Those mechanisms have the ability to use deadly force to compel compliance. Those mechanisms have the ability to take freedom away from the offenders and lock them up. In a case like Baylor, I would say that both criminal law was broken and potentially extra benefits were given to athletes. In such a case, all who committed crimes up to potentially Art Briles, should be held criminally responsible for their actions. Also, if any extra benefits were given to the athletes such as legal representation, the athletic department should be held responsible to the NCAA.

Well, if you look at my post, I referenced 19.01.2, not 19.02.2 . I don't know if you typo-ed that or not. For the sake of clarity, her it is.

19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct. Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.

The NCAA investigative panel on the case came to the conclusion after reviewing all the collected statements of facts, that Penn State did violate 19.01.2. Noting it in count 3 of the findings and conclusions. I agree with that conclusion. That's fine if you don't.

I agree, the NCAA should not be involved in criminal matters. And they weren't involved with the criminal aspects of this case. They got involved over the controls and oversight the institution did or didn't have in place to handle the non compliance with 19.01.2. I would determine the raping of a minor by an individual employed by or associated with the member institution to be in non compliance with avoiding improper conduct, would you? I would determine the raping of a minor by said individual to be in non compliance with avoiding questionable acts, would you? I would determine the raping of a minor by said individual to be in non compliance with positive moral values, would you? I would determine the raping of a minor by said individual to be in non compliance with influencing those younger and more pliable by a fine example, would you? Jerry Sandusky was absolutely an individual employed by the institution as a football coach from 1969 to the end of 1999, and also and individual associated with the institution from 2000 on as set forth in by-law 6.4, so he qualifies as meeting the definition for "Individual" in regards to 19.01.2.

Now I'll admit, I'm not privy to what's in the Penn State Athletic Departments employee SOPS manual or HR Employee Handbook regarding the witnessing of, knowledge of or committing a, felonious act on or off campus by an athletic department employee, but I can almost guarantee it doesn't say to do what they did, especially so for those in a position of leadership. And I can almost guarantee the SOPS or employee handbook does at least address criminal activity or the knowing or unknowing violation of local, state and federal laws, and proper procedures for dealing with that, including but not limited to probation or leave of absence for the employee until a governing or oversight committee can address the issue.
The Penn State Athletic Department and Administration did NONE of that. They swept it under the rug and covered it up in order to avoid negative publicity. In my book, that's lack of control and lack of oversight surrounding one of its athletic programs.

That's all I got or at least all the brain cells I'm going to waste on this discussion. Fire away.



[/QUOTE]

 

[RonJohn]

Well, if you look at my post, I referenced 19.01.2, not 19.02.2 . I don't know if you typo-ed that or not. For the sake of clarity, her it is.

19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct. Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.

The NCAA investigative panel on the case came to the conclusion after reviewing all the collected statements of facts, that Penn State did violate 19.01.2. Noting it in count 3 of the findings and conclusions. I agree with that conclusion. That's fine if you don't.

It was a type in the number. The current, as of 15-16, manual has three other sections between 19.01.1 and 19.01.5 Exemplary Conduct. The current 19.01.2 is:

19.01.2 Accountability. The infractions program shall hold institutions, coaches, administrators and student-
athletes who violate the NCAA constitution and bylaws accountable for their conduct, both at the individual
and institutional levels.

That is what I was responding to.

I have two issues with the idea that the NCAA should have stepped in:

The first is the plain text of the document. The entire document is written to ensure fairness in athletics. The "purpose" of the regulations in section 1.2 lists 9 ideas that are all about athletics. Even in the conclusions about Penn State, that paragraph, count 3, is written to confuse. Section 19 is the Infractions Program section of the rules. This is where it describes what happens if violations of the regulations are found. The current 19.01.05 is there to basically say that the athletic staff is responsible for presenting an image of compliance with the NCAA regulations. This says athletic staff should not be seen as anywhere near the border of violating rules. The NCAA has a specific role to regulate athletic competition and fairness. I don't believe the NCAA should get anywhere near deciding what is moral. Was Art Briles moral? Was Mike Leach moral? Was Sarkisian moral? Was Petrino moral? Was Pitino moral? I am not attempting to say that any of these were moral, just that the NCAA should limit their enforcement arm to the stated "purpose" of the NCAA.

The second is a baffling belief that the NCAA is somehow the greatest authority. Shortly after Sandusky was arrested, several SEC team fans told me that the big hammer would drop when the NCAA got involved. The police have power to arrest. The police have guns and can draw them if you resist. If you resist with force, the police can shoot and kill you. The prosecutors can present a case to a jury in order to have your property or your freedom forcibly taken from you. Yet somehow, there is a belief that the NCAA who can take action to reduce scholarships, or vacate wins, is the ULTIMATE authority in the United States. If there are illegal acts committed, the NCAA should stay out of the way of the police. If there are athletic competition/fairness violations, the NCAA should investigate and impose penalties if appropriate. If there are illegal activities and athletic competition/fairness violations, the NCAA should stay out of the way of the police with respect to the crimes, and investigate and impose penalties for the NCAA violations.

If the NCAA membership wants to expel a member school for gross behavior that the membership doesn't want to associate with, I would have no problems. However, if they want to enforce NCAA rules, they should go by a strict reading of the NCAA rules. If they aren't happy with the rules, then the text of the rules should be changed, not loosely interpreted to fit any scenario.

 

[deeeznutz]

Which is why he tried to prevent Sandusky from using the facilities....which was over ruled.

If he knew about it (which he obviously did, why else would he try to prevent Sandusky from using the facilities?) and didn't do anything about it except quietly behind closed doors, then he still actively aided in covering up for a serial child rapist. Maybe it doesn't rise to the level or a jailable offense, since he did report it to his superiors, but it's still a huge black mark on his character that you can't ignore.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Which is why he tried to prevent Sandusky from using the facilities....which was over ruled.

I agree with you for the most part. But JoePa coulda, and shoulda, fired Sandusky. Then distance himself as far as away as possible from a known child predator. I'd also agree he should have reported to local police as well.

If he had done those things, none could reasonably fault him. He did none of those things however.

 

[Animal02]

I agree with you for the most part. But JoePa coulda, and shoulda, fired Sandusky. Then distance himself as far as away as possible from a known child predator. I'd also agree he should have reported to local police as well.

If he had done those things, none could reasonably fault him. He did none of those things however.

He got rid of Sandusky years previously.
It was the admin that continued to allow him to use the facilities. He reported him to the person in charge of the campus police force, following protocol for a university. Everyone wants to judge him based on hind sight. Unfortunately that is not the way it works..... especially in a University setting.

 

[RonJohn]

He got rid of Sandusky years previously.
It was the admin that continued to allow him to use the facilities. He reported him to the person in charge of the campus police force, following protocol for a university. Everyone wants to judge him based on hind sight. Unfortunately that is not the way it works..... especially in a University setting.

It is hard to feel any sympathy for him. The Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner at the time made a statement that he did the minimum that the law required, but that in such a case there is a "moral responsibility" to ensure that the police are notified. Up until this was public, the Paterno supporters were of the opinion that he pretty much ran the entire athletic department and had great influence over the school administration. His supporters railed against anyone who questioned his ability to coach the team at his age and said that he was still very much in control of his mental facilities and was a very strong leader. Then after this became public, he was described as a sick, frail old man who didn't know what he was doing. It was said about him that even in 1998, he could not understand what it meant when someone said that a middle age man was taking sexual advantage of young boys.

He was either extremely influential at high levels of the University, or he was a pawn in the system. It can't be both ways. He was either a strong effective leader, or he was a stupid man who couldn't understand that a middle aged man molesting a young kid was wrong. I the late 90s, he was either a strong effective leader, or someone who cowered behind others and allowed them take the blame for his failure of "moral responsibility".

I could be wrong, but it is my impression of CPJ that if he walked in on something like this that he would beat the hell out of the guy. It is my impression of him that if he became aware of such a situation with someone on staff that he would make sure that it was reported to authorities and prosecuted. IF CPJ found out, reported it to Stansbury and then covered his eyes and ears, I would lose all of the respect that I have for him.