Syracuse Update: Fine Fired, Boeheim and SU Issue Statements. (Will JB Survive?)

[GGGG]

Well, I was pointing out that there was indeed proof (based on his own testimony to the grand jury) of what was going on.

I only added the second sentence as a throw in, but yeah I understand the issue.

Regardless, PSU didn't simply fire Paterno for PR reasons.  It is silly to think so.  Not to mention, that you don't need "jury proof" to fire someone.

[MUMac]

Well, I was pointing out that there was indeed proof (based on his own testimony to the grand jury) of what was going on.

I only added the second sentence as a throw in, but yeah I understand the issue.

Regardless, PSU didn't simply fire Paterno for PR reasons.  It is silly to think so.  Not to mention, that you don't need "jury proof" to fire someone.

I am not disagreeing with you.  We do not know all that went into the decision, only what is public.  Paterno forced their hands with his "retirement" announcement.  That said, I do not believe he was fired unfairly, based upon the information in the public. 

I just found that paragraph funny. 

[mu03eng]

He knew what McQueary told him and testified as such.  That is irrefutable fact.

There is also pretty strong conjecture that he knew about previous incidents, kept them quiet, and kept him involved with the program.

If we are basing it off of what we know and evidence, all we have in Paterno is that he was told something of a sexual nature happened.  There is no evidence to the contrary.  

Boeheim was told things went on in 2005, however we don't know what he knew.  Hell at the end of the day, ESPN probably had the biggest smoking gun off the whole thing in the audio tape they got in 2003....they didn't do anything with it, not bothering to even turn it into police that we know.

The Penn State situation and response has established the standard, at a minimum ESPN has fallen under that standard, and I think Boeheim, especially with his victim attacking has fallen under it as well.

And your second paragraph proves my point....the standard is now unless there is evidence proving the negative conjecture is sufficient for dismissal in these types of cases.

[GGGG]

If we are basing it off of what we know and evidence, all we have in Paterno is that he was told something of a sexual nature happened.  There is no evidence to the contrary.  

Boeheim was told things went on in 2005, however we don't know what he knew.  Hell at the end of the day, ESPN probably had the biggest smoking gun off the whole thing in the audio tape they got in 2003....they didn't do anything with it, not bothering to even turn it into police that we know.

The Penn State situation and response has established the standard, at a minimum ESPN has fallen under that standard, and I think Boeheim, especially with his victim attacking has fallen under it as well.

And your second paragraph proves my point....the standard is now unless there is evidence proving the negative conjecture is sufficient for dismissal in these types of cases.

So Paterno being told something of a "sexual nature" occuring between Sandusky and a young boy, and still letting him being involved with the football program, isn't enough?  That is is pretty solid reason to fire someone regardless of the PR involved.

[mu03eng]

Regardless, PSU didn't simply fire Paterno for PR reasons.  It is silly to think so.  Not to mention, that you don't need "jury proof" to fire someone.

No, but it was PR, because the BOT who did the firing is knee deep in the whole situation.  Basically firing Paterno was a way of deflecting the piercing eye of the media away from the Board of Trustees.  So while Paterno needed to go, he was fired as cover therefore in my opinion as a PR move.

I'm not trying to re-litigate the Paterno firing, my point is that the level of "proof" we have with Boeheim is nearly as damning as Paterno why would the punishments be different?  Especially since Boeheim attacked the victims in a public forum potentially preventing other victims from coming out.

[mu03eng]

So Paterno being told something of a "sexual nature" occuring between Sandusky and a young boy, and still letting him being involved with the football program, isn't enough?  That is is pretty solid reason to fire someone regardless of the PR involved.

You are proving my point....that is enough to fire Paterno.  My PR point was that the BOT did not fire him for that reason, they fired him to deflect attention. 

Boeheim was told the very same thing and via the victim himself and still employed Fine, why does the same standard not apply?

[MUMac]

So Paterno being told something of a "sexual nature" occuring between Sandusky and a young boy, and still letting him being involved with the football program, isn't enough?  That is is pretty solid reason to fire someone regardless of the PR involved.

This is where I have more questions and see that it could have been a PR move/or Paterno was the scapegoat.

We know Paterno was told that by McQuerry.  We also know that McQuerry did not confront Sandusky.  We know that Paterno reported this to his superior.  We know that after an "investigation", PSU did not pursue the matter.  After that, the facts become less clear.  

What was the response back to Paterno?  If it was that we investigated and it has been properly handled, what more should Paterno have done?  In retrospect, we now know a lot.  But, at that time, we do not know if he knew more or not.  If he was involved in any cover-up ...  We can speculate, but the facts are not out in the open.  But, we are told that he was advised the situation was investigated and properly discharged.  Should he have gone above his superior and the investigative team?

[Aughnanure]

It was the worst knee-jerk reaction ever then. Jim should just step down, people have lost their jobs for saying a lot less.

This is a poor reason to justify firing someone, much less justify anything.

[GGGG]

No, but it was PR, because the BOT who did the firing is knee deep in the whole situation.  Basically firing Paterno was a way of deflecting the piercing eye of the media away from the Board of Trustees.  So while Paterno needed to go, he was fired as cover therefore in my opinion as a PR move.

OK, I see where you are heading, but it could also be argued that the BOT finally did something that they should have done years ago - and only their own negligence prevented them from doing so.

Boeheim was told the very same thing and via the victim himself and still employed Fine, why does the same standard not apply?

Because Syracuse looked into the allegations and came to the conclusion that they were false (mostly because they didn't have the latest piece of evidence.)  That is way different than the systematic cover-up at PSU>

[mu03eng]

OK, I see where you are heading, but it could also be argued that the BOT finally did something that they should have done years ago - and only their own negligence prevented them from doing so.

One man's negligence is another man's willful cover-up

Because Syracuse looked into the allegations and came to the conclusion that they were false (mostly because they didn't have the latest piece of evidence.)  That is way different than the systematic cover-up at PSU>

We don't know that Syracuse isn't a cover-up, just likely technically speaking we don't know that PSU was either. 

What if the Sandusky thing went all the way to the BOT and they came back and told Paterno, don't worry we investigated there is nothing to worry about.  Is that different than what Syracuse is now saying?  We don't know all the facts in either the Penn State or the Syracuse situations, but what we do "know", IMHO, is roughly equivalent in both situations, shouldn't the reaction be the same?

[Lennys Tap]

You are proving my point....that is enough to fire Paterno.  My PR point was that the BOT did not fire him for that reason, they fired him to deflect attention. 

Boeheim was told the very same thing and via the victim himself and still employed Fine, why does the same standard not apply?

So let me get this straight. If someone accuses a person who works for you of a crime the proper procedure is to fire the accused on the spot. Anything less means you're part of a cover up if the allegations prove truthful - and if the allegations prove to be false what's one guy's life compared to the immediate public relations boost for the institution.

Going from a system that does everything to trample the rights of the accuser to one which presumes the guilt of the accused isn't progress, just a different kind of injustice.

[mu03eng]

So let me get this straight. If someone accuses a person who works for you of a crime the proper procedure is to fire the accused on the spot. Anything less means you're part of a cover up if the allegations prove truthful - and if the allegations prove to be false what's one guy's life compared to the immediate public relations boost for the institution.

Going from a system that does everything to trample the rights of the accuser to one which presumes the guilt of the accused isn't progress, just a different kind of injustice.

I agree with your premise, but we can't pick and choose when we want to presume guilt.  I'm saying the situations are much more similar than people want to admit so if we are being honest than our responses should be similar.  What we know between the two stories is nearly the same.....what we think we know is vastly different, but thats the point isn't it, we shouldn't be making decisions based on what we think we know.

[Dr. Blackheart]

When is God firing the Pope? 

[Lennys Tap]

I agree with your premise, but we can't pick and choose when we want to presume guilt.  I'm saying the situations are much more similar than people want to admit so if we are being honest than our responses should be similar.  What we know between the two stories is nearly the same.....what we think we know is vastly different, but thats the point isn't it, we shouldn't be making decisions based on what we think we know.

If a member of my staff supplies me with an eyewitness report of child rape/sexual abuse I think my responsibility to make sure the investigation proceeds is far greater than in a he said/he said situation. That's the crux of the difference regarding Joe Pa vs Boeheim.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Going from a system that does everything to trample the rights of the accuser to one which presumes the guilt of the accused isn't progress, just a different kind of injustice.

+1

[mu03eng]

If a member of my staff supplies me with an eyewitness report of child rape/sexual abuse I think my responsibility to make sure the investigation proceeds is far greater than in a he said/he said situation. That's the crux of the difference regarding Joe Pa vs Boeheim.

Agreed, but we don't know how far either one of the gentlemen went to make sure the situation proceeds.  We think we know, but we actually have no evidence in either case of what they did or did not do.

And the board favorite during the Paterno thing, how did he not know?  Fine has ball boys stay in his hotel room on road games and his wife sounds bat guano crazy so there is no way Boeheim knew anything?  Again pure speculation but that was the game played with Paterno, should be played with Boeheim.

[RawdogDX]

I'm with most of you that Boeheim is being railroaded out on the back of JoePa.

What I'm arguing is life is not fair and JoePa set a new standard.  Your over-analyzing that standard.  It is very simple.  If you are a head coach and you have a molester on your staff, you're gone.  If you thrash a victim of molestation, you cannot stay.

Those two things are completely different.  I think that JB should keep his job, I also thing JoePa needed to be fired, 100%.
Here is what JoePa did:
99 found out his asst. showered with boys.
01 asst published a book that talked about his 'special friends' way more than football.
02 was told that his now retired asst. was f'ing boys on campus.
09 found out that his former asst, who showered and f'd boys was expelled from a high school.
99 - 2011 - sent the child rapist to high schools on recruiting trips.
How do you continue to send him out on recruiting trips?  You should be fired for that.  If you think that he did enough in 02, fine, but he was sending him out to meet high school kids this summer...

Defending a friend you had for 35 years, in the heat of the moment, is completely different.  If he didn't know about it then he's OK in my book.

[🏀]

JoePa and JB are not comparable. JB still needs to be fired though.

It doesn't matter that JB was 'defending his friend in the heat of the moment', what he did with the words he spoke that day was create the worst environmental for sexual abuse.

The biggest figure in Syracuse (city & school) ever comes out states that if you go against my people, you're a liar and you're gold digging. That is highly unacceptable. Not only does this keep anyone else from coming forward, but what if there were some sexual assault cases with his players? I'd be afraid to come forward after the belittling Boeheim gave the victim.

[mu03eng]

Those two things are completely different.  I think that JB should keep his job, I also thing JoePa needed to be fired, 100%.
Here is what JoePa did:
99 found out his asst. showered with boys.
01 asst published a book that talked about his 'special friends' way more than football.
02 was told that his now retired asst. was f'ing boys on campus.
09 found out that his former asst, who showered and f'd boys was expelled from a high school.
99 - 2011 - sent the child rapist to high schools on recruiting trips.
How do you continue to send him out on recruiting trips?  You should be fired for that.  If you think that he did enough in 02, fine, but he was sending him out to meet high school kids this summer...

Defending a friend you had for 35 years, in the heat of the moment, is completely different.  If he didn't know about it then he's OK in my book.

First, while your list is thorough it also has a wide range of speculation and fact.  I would agree the speculation seems likely but then again maybe its not, we have no documents other than a grand jury report that by its very definition is biased.  Be that as it may, Paterno needed to go, thats ultimately not my point.

My point is that Boeheim knew Fine was investigated in 2005 and was presumably with him on roadtrips where Fine brought the ball boys with him to his hotel.  ESPN knew of this tape in 2002.  Clearly the wife knew since the 90s based on the tape.  So all these people knew something, those are facts and yet Paterno is fired for knowing something and not "doing more".  On top of that Boeheim comes out and crucifies the accusers, how is that establishing an environment to "do more".  To PTM's point, why would anyone come forward with allegations after what the biggest figure in Syracuse said a week ago.

The great irony of all this is that while some might have been uncomfortable with what Boeheim said last week, now that the accusations seem more credible there is controversy.  He should have been at a minimum been suspended for the statement alone, regardless of the situation.

[muwarrior69]

In any case any parent considering sending their son there to play basketball should give them pause.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

JB's statements after tonight's game do not exactly jibe with the contrite tenor of Sunday's written statement.

[jasonbrown]

Longtime assistant men's basketball instructor Bernie Fine has been fired by Syracuse University. Fine, who will turn 66 in Dec., has been accused by three individuals. While Boeheim has denied knowledge of wrongdoing, the Network for Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has called for the university to take further disciplinary measures against him. Read more here: http://www.newsytype.com/13688-syracuse-bernie-fine-molestation/

This is a big scandal in the school.As well as to Fine's family and relatives.

[nyg]

JB's statements after tonight's game do not exactly jibe with the contrite tenor of Sunday's written statement.

It appears that JB is waiting for the outcome of the investigation.  If criminal charges are filed, whether it be a police affidavit or a grand jury indictment against Fine, then things may change in JB's status. He kept stating the "under my watch" terminology and so far no charges have been filed. 

[MerrittsMustache]

It appears that JB is waiting for the outcome of the investigation.  If criminal charges are filed, whether it be a police affidavit or a grand jury indictment against Fine, then things may change in JB's status. He kept stating the "under my watch" terminology and so far no charges have been filed. 

My biggest issue with Boeheim is that he came out firing at the alleged victims and had no problem calling them liars and saying that they were only doing it for money. Now that some pretty damning evidence has come out against Fine, Boeheim very unapologetically states that everyone should wait until the investigation is complete before making judgments. He should have followed that advice from the beginning.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

This sums up the impression I got.

http://news.yahoo.com/column-boeheim-survive-price-005456602.html