The letter says that eight former players and one former assistant coach are appealing as individuals and as representatives of all former players and coaches who were part of Penn State's football program between 1998 and 2011. Why are these people appealing the punishment? Because they "are directly damaged and harmed by the punitive component of the consent decree, including the vacation of "all wins of the Penn State football team from 1998 to 2011." Sadly, the letter does not say what direct damage and harm occurred to these former players because Penn State's wins were vacated two weeks ago. Nor does the letter explain how this harm compares to any harm these players might have suffered as a result of simply being associated with a football program that has essentially admitted that it harbored a convicted child molester and took no action when it became aware of the child molester's actions.
The letter claims, without any support or explanation, that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are "clearly erroneous and not supported by the evidence." Given the voluminous citations in the report, I wonder what evidence the former players have in support of this claim.
The most interesting line in the whole letter is this sentence at the end of the second paragraph:
The Appellants believe that the only way to support and respect the victims of abuse is for there to be a thorough investigation and fair hearing which seeks the truth, not a rush to judgment designed to put this affair in the past.What can this possibly mean? How does restoring the wins that the NCAA took way--wins that occurred after Penn State officials either knew or should have known that they were harboring a child molester--respect the victims of abuse? Moreover, how can it be that the only way to support and respect victims of abuse is for the NCAA to investigate this matter more. I guess the criminal trial and whatever civil lawsuits that have been filed are not support or respect for the victims. I also guess that the people who actually know, respect, and support the victims are not really supporting the victims unless they agree with these former players that having a 100 or so losses on the football team's record is a travesty.
The other line that jumped out at me closes the first paragraph on the second page: "Meaning no disrespect to the victims of abuse, these findings are unfair and they are wrong." I have never seen the phrase "meaning no disrespect" used in a context that was not, you know, disrespectful.
I do not know whether the players have any chance of being successful in appealing a punishment that Penn State (the punished entity) agreed was appropriate. I do not know why the players that lessening the already grotesque calculus involved in determining how to punish a school for harboring a child molester is the only way to support the victims of abuse. However, I would like to believe that if any of these former players and coaches actually thought about it, they could come up with better ways to support Mr. Sandusky's victims than this appeal.
It is unacceptable to punish the entire class when a few rowdies shoot spitballs. Doing so is nothing less than child abuse.
ReplyDeleteYou keep repeating this line:
ReplyDelete"Penn State officials either knew or should have known that they were harboring a child molester"
Could you please show me FACTS that support this statement?
I see the cultists have shown up quickly on this site. This ain't spitballs cultist. It's a little worse than that. Joe knew as did many others. McCreary knew, Brady knew, and considering the byline on ol Jerry just about everybody else on that staff did too. It will come out. After the Feds are through with Ped State a lot more hideous facts will probably be revealed. It is not over yet.
ReplyDeleteA cult is a cult and they can only see their own delusions. Ped State is creepy and disgusting as your comments show.
Why is it that if you support a search for more facts and information you are automatically labled a pedofile supporter? Everybody needs to read this before jumpimg to conclusions. Read this and ask yourself "what if it was me or my family getting raked over the coals in the court of public opinion.
ReplyDeletehttp://framingpaterno.com/how-media-may-have-framed-joe-paterno
Anon #1: I think child abuse is probably an imprudent analogy to throw out in this instance.
ReplyDeleteI thought Anon #1 was being sarcastic.
ReplyDeleteAnon #2, the evidence in support of the statement you question is found in documents attached to and supporting the Freeh Report. http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
The report, which is heavily footnoted, makes it very clear that Penn State administrators knew by at least 2001 that Jerry Sandusky was abusing children and had probably abused children in the football facilities. The report is also clear that Penn State officials knew in 1999, that Mr. Sandusky was accussed of child abuse.
Anon #3. I did not suggest that the former players are pedophile supporters. I suggested that they were wrong about the idea that an appeal to the NCAA of Penn State's punishment was the only way to respect and support Mr. Sandusky's victims.
Adam: Point 2. What does that mean? If you know someone is investigated and the DA chooses not to press charges (or even inform the accused), is it then your responsibility to denigrate them in public? On what grounds? Just because a document is lengthy (i.e. heavily footnoted) how does that imply accuracy? I do not see the correlation. It is my opinion that the sources cited in the Freeh report do not come close to backing the conclusions made in the same.
ReplyDelete"Given the voluminous citations in the report, I wonder what evidence the former players have in support of this claim." Adam can you point out what page or pages exactly is the evidence that the coverup included Coach Paterno?
ReplyDelete