Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 50
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906

    NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit



    As I'm sure many are aware Penn. Governor Tom Corbett announced plans to file an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA in federal court over sanctions imposed against Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal. Corbett stated,

    “This was a criminal matter, not a violation of NCAA rules. The NCAA didn’t have any business in imposing these sanctions.”

    My interest however is in the NCAA's response to Corbett, which I think is a blatant, and frankly pathetic appeal to emotion.

    NCAA's response,

    "We are disappointed by the Governor's action today. Not only does this forthcoming lawsuit appear to be without merit, it is an affront to all of the victims in this tragedy - lives that were destroyed by the criminal actions of Jerry Sandusky. While the innocence that was stolen can never be restored, Penn State has accepted the consequences for its role and the role of its employees and is moving forward. Today's announcement by the Governor is a setback to the University's efforts."


    Engaging their legal right for a fair and unbiased appeal that is removed from emotional reaction to the situation is an affront to the victim's and their families?

    Come on NCAA.

    No one denies the utter and horrific events that took place, but that is not a license to be irresponsible and cast aspersions.

    I don't have a horse in this race. That said, I thought the NCAA's response was much more offensive than the Governor's.

    Your thoughts?


    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...sing-sanctions


    http://www.statecollege.com/mobile/n...ctims-1213094/
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,251

    Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    As I'm sure many are aware Penn. Governor Tom Corbett announced plans to file an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA in federal court over sanctions imposed against Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal. Corbett stated,

    “This was a criminal matter, not a violation of NCAA rules. The NCAA didn’t have any business in imposing these sanctions.”

    My interest however is in the NCAA's response to Corbett, which I think is a blatant, and frankly pathetic appeal to emotion.

    NCAA's response,

    "We are disappointed by the Governor's action today. Not only does this forthcoming lawsuit appear to be without merit, it is an affront to all of the victims in this tragedy - lives that were destroyed by the criminal actions of Jerry Sandusky. While the innocence that was stolen can never be restored, Penn State has accepted the consequences for its role and the role of its employees and is moving forward. Today's announcement by the Governor is a setback to the University's efforts."


    Engaging their legal right for a fair and unbiased appeal that is removed from emotional reaction to the situation is an affront to the victim's and their families?

    Come on NCAA.

    No one denies the utter and horrific events that took place, but that is not a license to be irresponsible and cast aspersions.

    I don't have a horse in this race. That said, I thought the NCAA's response was much more offensive than the Governor's.

    Your thoughts?


    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...sing-sanctions


    http://www.statecollege.com/mobile/n...ctims-1213094/
    My thoguhts on this now are the same as they were then. THe NCAA went to far. Punishing current players and fans of Penn State for a guy that hasn't had involvement with the actual team (players) and a coach who passed away, is ridiculous.

    IF they think what they did somehow helps the victims cope, than there actions are worse than saying the lawsuit is an affront to the victims. Absolutely ridiculous, to do what they did and somehow think that makes any victim feel better (if that was their intent).
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    .

    IF they think what they did somehow helps the victims cope, than there actions are worse than saying the lawsuit is an affront to the victims. Absolutely ridiculous, to do what they did and somehow think that makes any victim feel better (if that was their intent).
    Yep, my thoughts exactly.

    Their response was an obvious PR move and an attempt to keep emotion an active and involved determinant. Unfortunately for them, that's just not how justice works.

    That response confirms my belief that the NCAA's sanctions were done in emotional response to appease the masses and not out of total consideration of the circumstances.

    What was taken away from the victims and their families could never be recouped. Faux-justice like this does more damage than it does repair, and I would argue that does more to keep this Sandusky scandal relevant than the Gov. Fighting it does as well.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,029

    Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

    The NCAA can and does have power over the activities of the coaches and coaching staff and that's where they ruled. Since Sandusky did some of his sordid business while he was a coach, the school can be sanctioned. And since Paterno and the AD played an active roll in the cover up, they can be banged for that too. Emotions have nothing to do with it.

    And I am not a legal expert by any stretch so I asked Mrs. HR to take a look. He first reaction was "The NCAA isn't bound by antitrust laws". It's a governing body of athletics, not of the Universities as a whole. Collusion laws don't apply since the players are college students, not union members.

    A school voluntarily enters into the NCAA, knowing full well their athletic department may get smacked hard for violations.

    Sounds to me that a certain Governor is simply trying to score re-election points.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,251

    Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    The NCAA can and does have power over the activities of the coaches and coaching staff and that's where they ruled. Since Sandusky did some of his sordid business while he was a coach, the school can be sanctioned. And since Paterno and the AD played an active roll in the cover up, they can be banged for that too. Emotions have nothing to do with it.

    And I am not a legal expert by any stretch so I asked Mrs. HR to take a look. He first reaction was "The NCAA isn't bound by antitrust laws". It's a governing body of athletics, not of the Universities as a whole. Collusion laws don't apply since the players are college students, not union members.

    A school voluntarily enters into the NCAA, knowing full well their athletic department may get smacked hard for violations.

    Sounds to me that a certain Governor is simply trying to score re-election points.
    Don't disagree with that, or anyone it. I just think they acted in the wrong way.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Based off that information, which obviously means there's zero chance at reversal, I dislike that NCAA statement even more.

    That statement was undeniably an appeal to emotion. With the ruling in hand, why release such a weak statement? Just seems poorly handled to me.


    There is no doubt in my mind that meeting the unprecedented nature of the crimes with unprecedented sanctions was in the arbiters minds. However whether that was the right or even necessary action isn't black and white. It wasn't as if the crimes lined up with some corresponding set of sanctions. There was an arbitrary element involved here, and I'm arguing it was emotion.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    I'll clarify that when I say emotion was involved with the sanctions I mean not so much individual emotion on behalf of the arbiters, so much as consideration of the public emotional response that would follow the sanctions.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906

    Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

    This is getting very interesting. It seems it would be unwise to simply dismiss this as a done deal. I stand by my belief that the NCAA acted impetuously. It's pretty hard to overlook the fact that Freeh had no power of subpoena throughout this. I don't care how good of an investigator you are, key elements will be absent.
    The Paterno family asked its attorney's law firm, King and Spalding of Washington, D.C., to start "a comprehensive review of the report and Joe Paterno's conduct. They authorized us to engage the preeminent experts in their field and to obtain their independent analyses."

    The law firm hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh, former FBI supervisory special agent and former state prosecutor James Clemente, and Dr. Fred Berlin, a treating physician, psychiatrist, psychologist and expert in sexual disorders and pedophilia at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine. The report, titled "The Rush To Injustice Regarding Joe Paterno," was provided to ESPN and ahead of its release on the condition ESPN not divulge its contents publicly until Sunday morning.

    The Paterno family report's authors made 10 conclusions after their review:

    • No evidence exists that Paterno concealed critical information about Sandusky.

    • Paterno, "based on a review of all available evidence, including discussions with attorneys representing Curley, Schultz and Spanier made no attempt to hide any information, hinder or impede any investigation or limit the number of people who were informed of" one the key incidents in the Sandusky scandal. In that 2001 incident, then-assistant coach Mike McQueary witnessed the assault of a boy in the shower by Sandusky and told Paterno about it the next day.

    • No evidence exists that a desire to avoid bad publicity ever motivated Paterno.

    • That the Freeh report "ignored decades of expert research and analysis of the appropriate way to understand and investigate a child sexual victimization case. Consequently, the Freeh report missed a tremendous opportunity to educate the public regarding the behavior of 'nice-guy' acquaintance child molesters."

    • Freeh's investigators "produced a report that fit their expectations despite contrary evidence or a more reasonable interpretation."

    • The report was "oversold to the public, and Penn State officials, the NCAA and other bodies detrimentally relied upon it. The limitations of the investigation, which were numerous and defining, were not adequately explained or understood."

    • Sandusky was an exceptionally effective manipulator and deceiver ... One of the most respected child sexual victimization experts in the world has concluded that Joe Paterno, like many others, did not recognize Jerry Sandusky as a child molester after the 2001 incident."

    • Freeh investigators' access to vital documents and critical witnesses was severely limited. "These limitations, which were understated or ignored in the report, call into question the legitimacy of the entire report."

    • The Freeh report is "uniformly biased" against Paterno and its authors "ascribe motives to people they never met or interviewed and interpret ambiguous documents with a clarity and decisiveness that is impossible to justify."

    • One major flaw in the Freeh report is that it does not follow a typical standard of courtroom examinations and independent investigations -- the consideration of a person's lifetime record of "moral conduct and altruism." It treats Paterno's long life "as if it were irrelevant to the case."

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...-total-failure
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 02-10-2013 at 03:24 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906

    Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

    Per Paterno.com:


    There is no evidence to support the allegation that the football culture at Penn State was somehow to blame for Sandusky's crimes. Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh says that including such a claim, with no factual basis to support it, undermines the credibility of the entire report.

    Freeh's failure to conduct interviews with most of the key witnesses is a glaring deficiency. In the 1998 incident, for example, Freeh's investigators failed to interview at least 14 of the most important witnesses, including Curley, Schultz, the District Attorney's office, the Department of Public Welfare and the University's police department or its outside legal counsel. This pattern was repeated in the 2001 review. Having never talked with these individuals, the Freeh report still claimed to know what they did and why they did it.

    Freeh investigators did not have subpoena power, and no one testified under oath. Worse, witnesses were allowed to speak anonymously, something that would never happen in a legitimate legal proceeding.

    The conspiracy claim made by the Freeh report based on a string of three emails falls apart under scrutiny. Because of a technology switch in 2004, most of the Penn State emails for the time in question are not accessible. Moreover, there are no emails authored by Joe Paterno and none that he received. In fact, the emails referenced by the Freeh report show that Joe Paterno knew few details about Sandusky, that he acted in good faith and that he did what he thought was right based on what he knew at the time.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  10. #10

    Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

    Guys, Paterno was told about the abuse in 2001. He didn't go to the police which makes him guilty of covering it up. The NCAA, as much as I truly despise those pieces-of-shit, are right. Actions by Penn State University's football program negatively impacted the game of college football; not on the field but in a much worse way.

    Saying PSU shouldn't be punished by the actions of a former coach is the same as saying USC shouldn't be punished because Pete Carroll cheated.




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,029

    Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

    Agree with Darb.

    And I heard Jay Paterno on Mike & Mike today. He's a grade a douche, more worried about image than the facts of the case.

    All this report did was pick open a scab that was finally starting to heal.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,251

    Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

    Just a question. I am not a Paterno fan and haven't followed this to closely but I was wondering, does anyone know exactly what the guy who witnessed the shower incident told Paterno?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland