And that is one of the grave failings of the Freeh report. His team drew the conclusion that McQueary's report was not forwarded to the authorities out of the concern of negative publicity. But Freeh never spoke to Curley, Schultz, McQueary or Paterno, and Spanier didn't tell the investigators that, so what turns this from speculation into proven facts to support the punishments handed down?
In the emails between the administrators, the only reason they discussed was the desire to confront Sandusky before involving other agencies, in a ridiculous attempt to handle it "humane"ly. But this first-person evidence was dismissed as a theory in favor of the Commission's pet motive; so it was written and so it became accepted.
I doubt that we will ever get the full truth out of any of the men facing trial for the coverup, but that doesn't mean that Freeh's suggestion is automatically true either.
RSBM
True, the Freeh group was not allowed to interview those 4 men cited due to legal actions they were involved in, however, they did have the emails from 1998, the police report, interviews with LE involved, the DPW worker, counselors Dr. Chambers and Seasock. They investigated whether there was a report made in 2001 and had the grand jury report with Curley's and Shultz's statement and that they were charged with lying and not reporting the abuse. They had McQueary's testimony of what he had seen and done and how he reported it to Paterno, Curley and Shultz, however, no police report of the incident existed. Paterno admitted he was told the abuse was sexual and that he did not report it to LE either. Besides this evidence, Freeh stated that his group interviewed over 400 people from the school and other agencies involved who provided them with more information of procedures, atmosphere and how things worked at the school regarding the football team. I think their conclusion was a reasonable, not speculative, one.
Several of the articles linked in the twitter entries above gave some analysis of Corbett's suit:
1/Deadspin is in favor of the suit but most of the comments do not agree with him:
http://deadspin.com/5972596/?utm_ca...source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
............So is the lawsuit an attempt to absolve Penn State officials of any alleged wrongdoing?
No, though that hasn't stopped writers like Christine Brennan from viewing it that way. In fact, the suit says explicitly that "the Commonwealth emphatically repudiates the conduct of the university officials who knew about the underlying offenses and failed to report them to law enforcement authorities." It's an important distinction, since the NCAA has already reacted to the lawsuit by shamelessly hiding behind Sandusky's victims. But the courts are there to take care of the three Penn State administrators still facing criminal charges. The target here is the NCAA, and the NCAA alone, because the NCAAa legal and moral enormity that is nothing more than a complex worker's-comp avoidance schemeoften does what it wants and comes up with some airy bull**** to justify having done so. In the case of Penn State, the NCAA used the horrors of Sandusky's crimes to assume powers it doesn't actually have. Hate the school all you want. Penn State is firmly on the side of the angels here.
Typical comment: So, the NCAA is full of ****, so therefore we should support a lawsuit that is borne more out of the political motivations of a Governor who is also full of ****? Sorry, I don't buy it.
But maybe it would be better to illustrate this within the context of the power that the NCAA *does* have--to regulate and punish for the purpose of ensuring competitive integrity:
A school and it's players are punished if one of the players receives illicit benefits, because it means that school had the services of a player that it might not otherwise have had. In the case of Sandusky, the team was allowed to continue using an excellent defensive coordinator because he recieved the "benefit" of not being charged with a crime when it was discovered that he was raping children in the locker rooms. Then, Penn State continued to receive the leadership of another great coach, because that coach received the benefit of having no consequences for actively concealing the illegal behavior of his coach and friend.
In other words, Penn State received a competitive advantage that they wouldn't have otherwise had (if the administration had followed the law) because they provided Sandusky and then Paterno with the benefit of covering up an incredibly heinous crime.
The NCAA may be full of ****, but I refuse to believe that the sanctions they handed down as a response to the systemic cover-up of a child rape ring is the banner we need to hoist up to rally the masses to end the NCAA.
2/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0102/Pennsylvania-suing-NCAA-over-Penn-State-sanctions.-Does-it-have-a-case
.........Where the state might encounter difficulty is proving that the NCAA pressured Penn State President Rodney Erickson into what Corbett says was silent compliance with its sanctions by threatening to impose even more debilitating sanctions to the football program. In his complaint, Corbett wants the consent agreement the university signed with the NCAA to be declared illegal.
Mark Conrad, who teaches sports law at Fordham University in New York City, says the university took swift action in signing off with the NCAA actions without challenge, which will make it difficult to suggest they were coerced.
It seems the university wanted to wash their hands of [the scandal] pretty quickly. I dont know how [the state] is going to prove they were forced, Mr. Conrad says.
3/Michael McCann
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...130102/penn-state-lawsuit-analysis/index.html
.............The NCAA can attack the lawsuit on several grounds.
First, the NCAA can insist the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacks standing to sue the NCAA. This argument would be simple: Corbett does not work for Penn State, and the Pennsylvania government's relationship to Penn State is mainly based on financial assistance rather than in direction. Therefore, they lack the right to file a lawsuit over Penn State's sanction.
-----------
Second, the NCAA can argue it was contractually authorized to sanction Penn State, which is a member of the NCAA by voluntary choice, not by requirement. The NCAA can cite at least two contracts: the membership agreement between Penn State and the NCAA which requires Penn State to follow the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws, and the consent decree in which Penn State clearly accepted sanction for violating specific provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws. The NCAA could thus argue that it has explained its grounds for sanction and that the only party who can commence challenge -- Penn State -- has relinquished that right.
-----------
Lastly, the NCAA may go after Corbett for his action -- or inaction -- in prosecuting Sandusky as Attorney General of Pennsylvania from 2005 to 2011. There was a three-year gap between a grand jury charged with reviewing Sandusky and Sandusky's indictment in November 2011, with a suspicion that Corbett, running for governor in 2009 and 2010, proceeded slowly so as to avoid alienating Penn State alums. The NCAA could maintain Corbett's own behavior contributed to the injury for which he now seeks redress. Corbett's supporters, however, contend he proceeded deliberately in order to develop the most airtight case against Sandusky, who would be convicted on 45 of 48 counts.
