Comment On One Aspect Of The PSU Sanctions

[Benny B]

McQuery also concealed this by his failure to act appropriately, is no less culpable than anyone else involved in covering it up.

Exactly my point.  Dozens of people knew what was going on, but nobody did a darn thing to stop it for nearly 13 years.

He put his own interests ahead of those kids.

Partially true.  Not going to the police immediately absolutely put the child's interests last, but McQuery knew that the potential of retribution for reporting a "superior's" misconduct existed when he reported the incident to JVP.  So McQuery initially had his own interests ahead of the child's, but his interests were at risk.  So was McQuery protecting his own interests when he chose not to go the police or escalated the issue with the administration days/weeks/months later?  No... people already knew what he saw, and there was no closure as far as we know.  So McQuery probably woke up every morning realizing that his job could be in jeopardy regardless of whether or not he said another word, and by not saying anything he put the interests someone (or something) else ahead of his own.

McQuery never pushed the matter outside the football program because he placed the program's interests ahead of even his own.  McQuery put his own rear on the line at least once, but never did he put PSU Football at risk.

[Pakuni]

Exactly my point.  Dozens of people knew what was going on, but nobody did a darn thing to stop it for nearly 13 years.

Partially true.  Not going to the police immediately absolutely put the child's interests last, but McQuery knew that the potential of retribution for reporting a "superior's" misconduct existed when he reported the incident to JVP. 

Disagree. McQuery was simply passing the buck. A 28-year-old man knows that when you see a child being raped, you stop it and then report it to the authorities. He did neither, fearing it would cost him his job.

[Benny B]

Disagree. McQuery was simply passing the buck. A 28-year-old man knows that when you see a child being raped, you stop it and then report it to the authorities. He did neither, fearing it would cost him his job.

What part do you disagree with?  The part where I said people knew about it and didn't do anything, or the part about putting the child's interests last by not going to police?

If McQuery was looking out solely for his interests, he would never had said anything to anyone.  He did do something knowing it could cost him his job, but he never did anything that could have tarnished PSU Football.

[mu03eng]

I'm fairly certain that if I see someone having anal sex with a child in a shower that I have correctly identified a "pedophile."  Maybe I'm just psychic that way.

False, again, McQuery never claimed to have seen anal sex and in both the grand jury testimony and Sandusky trail testified he didn't see exactly what went on but he was uncomfortable with it.

So its not black and white.....its white enough that immediate action needed to be taken(go to police) and let them handle it but there isn't the preponderance of evidence that everyone thinks there is.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

So what is your point, exactly? Do you have even have one? I've never seen someone so breathless to distinguish between whether a 28 year old man saw an older man's penis enter a boy's rectum or whether he merely saw the older man fondling the boy. Did you scour the official reports to find discrepancies between what the media is reporting and what has been said in testimony?

[RJax55]

So what is your point, exactly? Do you have even have one? I've never seen someone so breathless to distinguish between whether a 28 year old man saw an older man's penis enter a boy's rectum or whether he merely saw the older man fondling the boy. Did you scour the official reports to find discrepancies between what the media is reporting and what has been said in testimony?

+1. I have no idea what his point is either.

[mu03eng]

So what is your point, exactly? Do you have even have one? I've never seen someone so breathless to distinguish between whether a 28 year old man saw an older man's penis enter a boy's rectum or whether he merely saw the older man fondling the boy. Did you scour the official reports to find discrepancies between what the media is reporting and what has been said in testimony?

Well, yes, unlike most people here I read the Freeh report cover to cover.  And my point is, this situation is not terribly different than other instances of serial molestation.  Often its someone close to the perpetrator who seems something, often in the gray area, and has to rectify what they saw with what they "know" of, lets say Uncle John, and decide if they report.  Often if people don't report, when "Uncle John" is uncovered, looking back all the signs were there but they weren't clear enough for anyone person to see.  So when everyone screams about cover-up, based on the available information, its certainly a possibility, but it could also be a case of missed opportunities to put it all together.

So ultimately the media is doing everyone a disservice by leading the pitch fork and torch handout brigade making it so clear cut with false information.

Besides, what is your problem with knowing the truth?  The facts I've corrected for you doesn't make the story any less heinous, Sandusky any less evil, the leadership at Penn State any less negligent.  Just makes everything a lot more gray, and that's what real life is in these scenarios.

[CTWarrior]

Exactly.  Is there such a thing as a punishment that doesn't affect innocent people unfairly?  What about when you and your buddy plan to go to the movies, but your buddy got grounded, and now you can't go?

What about all of the kids that grow up in poverty because their knucklehead fathers are sitting in prison instead of supporting them?

How about the fact that I have to pay taxes to feed and house said knuckleheads?   

In all your examples, the innocent are punished as a by-product of punishing the guilty.  The difference is that the NCAA punishment handed down ONLY punishes the innocent, since the guilty are (in theory) all gone already.  I know I'm in the minority here, but I think the right action for the NCAA was to do nothing at all beyond perhaps barring all Penn State coaches during this period from coaching in the NCAA for x number of years or permanently.  I think every one of those sonuva you-know-whats who knew what happened and chose not to act should be thrown in jail and fined to the fullest extent of the law, but this is an legal issue, not an NCAA issue.

If he was a chemistry professor would you force them to downgrade their chemistry facilities after they fired the professor and all his superiors?

[Benny B]

In all your examples, the innocent are punished as a by-product of punishing the guilty.  The difference is that the NCAA punishment handed down ONLY punishes the innocent, since the guilty are (in theory) all gone already.  I know I'm in the minority here, but I think the right action for the NCAA was to do nothing at all beyond perhaps barring all Penn State coaches during this period from coaching in the NCAA for x number of years or permanently.  I think every one of those sonuva you-know-whats who knew what happened and chose not to act should be thrown in jail and fined to the fullest extent of the law, but this is an legal issue, not an NCAA issue.

If he was a chemistry professor would you force them to downgrade their chemistry facilities after they fired the professor and all his superiors?

People keep using this word "innocent" to refer to the current players, coaches, students, etc., many of whom have - even since the Freeh report was released - come out in defense of a man who knowingly turned the other way while young children were being raped in his program's facilities and called him a "good man who made a simple mistake."

If you're going to characterize these people as "innocent," pray tell, how do you characterize the victims?

[CTWarrior]

People keep using this word "innocent" to refer to the current players, coaches, students, etc., many of whom have - even since the Freeh report was released - come out in defense of a man who knowingly turned the other way while young children were being raped in his program's facilities and called him a "good man who made a simple mistake."

If you're going to characterize these people as "innocent," pray tell, how do you characterize the victims?

They are innocent because those who remain at Penn State didn't commit any crime or cover up any crime. Since when are you guilty of a crime based on your opinion or your desire to support a man who has done a lot of good for many?  Wrongheaded?  For sure.  I don't want sound like I am defending Paterno or those who covered up this mess in any way because what they did is reprehensible, but those who are being punished by the NCAA had nothing to do with any of the crimes that caused the punishment.  This punishment does not hurt those who are truly responsible in any way.

And while the victims are innocent, I don't think killing Penn State football isn't going to help them in any meaningful way.

[Hards Alumni]

They are innocent because those who remain at Penn State didn't commit any crime or cover up any crime. Since when are you guilty of a crime based on your opinion or your desire to support a man who has done a lot of good for many?  Wrongheaded?  For sure.  I don't want sound like I am defending Paterno or those who covered up this mess in any way because what they did is reprehensible, but those who are being punished by the NCAA had nothing to do with any of the crimes that caused the punishment.  This punishment does not hurt those who are truly responsible in any way.

And while the victims are innocent, I don't think killing Penn State football isn't going to help them in any meaningful way.

The University knowingly employed criminals and aided in covering up the crimes committed.

They should have gotten the death sentence.

[🏀]

They are innocent because those who remain at Penn State didn't commit any crime or cover up any crime. Since when are you guilty of a crime based on your opinion or your desire to support a man who has done a lot of good for many?  Wrongheaded?  For sure.  I don't want sound like I am defending Paterno or those who covered up this mess in any way because what they did is reprehensible, but those who are being punished by the NCAA had nothing to do with any of the crimes that caused the punishment.  This punishment does not hurt those who are truly responsible in any way.

And while the victims are innocent, I don't think killing Penn State football isn't going to help them in any meaningful way.

Except that the existence of Penn State football created a sphere of influence that allowed Paterno and the University to allow and cover up Sandusky when he ANALLY RAPEd LITTLE BOYS.

Why is this so difficult?

[Benny B]

They are innocent because those who remain at Penn State didn't commit any crime or cover up any crime. Since when are you guilty of a crime based on your opinion or your desire to support a man who has done a lot of good for many?  Wrongheaded?  For sure.  I don't want sound like I am defending Paterno or those who covered up this mess in any way because what they did is reprehensible, but those who are being punished by the NCAA had nothing to do with any of the crimes that caused the punishment.  This punishment does not hurt those who are truly responsible in any way.

And while the victims are innocent, I don't think killing Penn State football isn't going to help them in any meaningful way.

So you hold rape victims in the same regard as the people who sympathize, protect, hide and facilitate their rapists?

The people who revere and defend Joe Paterno even after knowing how culpable he was are the same ones who created and perpetuate the environment that consciously allowed those crimes to happen for over a decade.  They may be innocent of the crime in the eyes of the law, but they aren't "innocent" of responsibility.

The only "innocents" being wrongly affected by these sanctions are the ones who are distancing themselves from Joe Paterno & PSU football... by my count, that number is zero  

The NCAA had every right to step in and sanction the university. And that's who they sanctioned... the university. No student athlete was sanctioned. No student was sanctioned. No professor was sanctioned. The reason any of them may be affected by the NCAA's sanctions is because they choose to be -- nobody's forcing anyone to stay in Happy Valley.