Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
X Penn State President, VP and AD get jail time
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Vespid" data-source="post: 315949" data-attributes="member: 1436"><p>Well, if you look at my post, I referenced 19.<strong>01</strong>.2, not 19.<strong>02</strong>.2 . I don't know if you typo-ed that or not. For the sake of clarity, her it is.</p><p></p><p><strong>19.01.2</strong> <strong>Exemplary Conduct</strong>. 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <strong>doesn't</strong> say to do what they <strong>did, </strong>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.</p><p>The Penn State Athletic Department and Administration did <strong>NONE </strong>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.</p><p></p><p>That's all I got or at least all the brain cells I'm going to waste on this discussion. Fire away.</p><p></p><p></p></blockquote><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Vespid, post: 315949, member: 1436"] Well, if you look at my post, I referenced 19.[B]01[/B].2, not 19.[B]02[/B].2 . I don't know if you typo-ed that or not. For the sake of clarity, her it is. [B]19.01.2[/B] [B]Exemplary Conduct[/B]. 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 [B]doesn't[/B] say to do what they [B]did, [/B]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 [B]NONE [/B]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. [B][/B] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
X Penn State President, VP and AD get jail time
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top