<p>If you are going to quote Joe Paterno don’t leave anything out</p>
<p>Paterno, announcing his retirement on Wednesday, said, “This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."</p>
<p>“With the benefit of hindsight”. I think that changes his message quite a bit.</p>
<p>Sax: That line “With the benefit of hindsight” always struck me as self-serving on his part. How much judgement did it take to see that a old man “horsing around” with minors in a shower is a bad thing. Just another way of him trying to excuse his atrocious lack of judgement</p>
<p>Or maybe Paterno thought at that time that it was enough to alert the Athletic Director and that the athletic director would do and did do his job. </p>
<p>No one will know until he tells his side of the story. He certainly would be foolish to say anything until he is in court. He did finally get an attorney who told him not to say anything else publicly.</p>
<p>It amazes me that some posters speak with such certainty about when and exactly what people knew at the time.</p>
<p>sax, what if Paterno never does tell his side of the story? IMO there’s a decent chance that Sandusky will plead and JoePa will never testify. Or by the time this all comes to court, he may be medically unable to testify. Do we then have to give him the benefit of the doubt for all eternity? Do we assume that there really aren’t any victims, or if there are, their stories don’t matter? At this point, do we give any weight at all to Victim One’s sworn testimony?</p>
<p>We know there was an investigation into Jerry Sandusky in 1998. Are we to give Paterno the benefit of the doubt and assume he knew nothing about it? Could any investigation in 1998 of Sandusky showering at Penn State showers with young boys been complete without talking to Paterno, or at the very least Paterno knowing about it? Does that make any kind of sense to anyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, yeah, hindsight could = “If I knew it was all going to come out.”</p>
<p>Even if Paterno is never charged with a crime because he informed his “bosses” about the rape, the truth has come out about how he runs his program and how he has been sweeping crimes and transgressions under the rug for decades. This has been known to be going on for a long time, but whenever an allegation was made, it was looked upon as being sacrilegious. Because this case is so vile and despicable, people could no longer look the other way. The police have said that when they came upon PSU football players committing crimes or breaking laws, they were not to arrest them or bring them in for questioning, and never, ever to say a word to the press–they were directed to take them to “Joe’s house, where they would spend the night, he would talk to them, and they would be out on the field the next day, with extra workouts.” Paterno threatened anyone who tried to intervene, he said that he would refuse to raise any more money for the University unless a whistle-blower was fired–he made sure that the AD was a former player of his, as were all of the asst. coaches–so that everybody was dependent upon and beholden to him for their jobs–it was one big house of cards with him at the top.</p>
<p>Well said, rcefn. And 17 hours ago at that. I think that’s a record for this thread.</p>
<p>Paterno did things the old fashioned way, which probably was truly how it was done 30 - 40 years ago, hushed up, etc. Most workplaces have expectations that threats and potential violence are handled in a manner that mitigates legal risk to the organization. Aside from the legal and moral imperatives, it appears that Penn State didn’t have or didn’t follow typical workplace measures that have been in place certainly at minimum the last decade or more. </p>
<p>and tom1944—when you say you don’t believe we have any solid information about what Spanier was TOLD yet, I am confused. Do we actually think that a university president has no responsibility to ASK questions about such a concerning situation and have ALL available information. It seems you may be implying if he wasn’t told x, y or z, oh well, he’s not liable for anything. where I am employed leaders and directors and presidents are responsible for gathering all information when there’s a situation that places the organization in legal or moral jeopardy, even if it’s just enough to make the organization look like they didn’t do enough. As they say, that’s why they’re paid the big bucks. I can’t believe you think a president of a university can simply use the “I wasn’t told all the facts/details”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve wondered about the legal aspects of this. Is it possible that Spanier and the VP never told their internal and/or outside legal counsel about the 2002 incident? Wouldn’t an attorney have strongly advised them to report it to outside (non-PSU) law enforcement – to cover themselves legally, if nothing else?</p>
<p>[Should</a> outlets have handed Bernie Fine tapes to police? - College Basketball News | FOX Sports on MSN](<a href=“http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/Bernie-Fine-Syracuse-should-outlets-have-handed-tapes-to-police-112811]Should”>http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/Bernie-Fine-Syracuse-should-outlets-have-handed-tapes-to-police-112811)</p>
<p>Article speaks for itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactly how I would see it. JMO</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State football team should decline bowl bid - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/id/7268701/penn-state-football-team-decline-bowl-bid]Penn”>Penn State football team should decline bowl bid - ESPN)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess he figures if PSU can investigate itself, why can’t he?</p>
<p>Read more: [Sandusky</a> hires private investigator - UPI.com](<a href=“Sandusky hires private investigator - UPI.com”>Sandusky hires private investigator - UPI.com)</p>
<p>Investigate: ie try to dig up dirt on the victims</p>
<p>Oh My.
Well, PSU certainly does not mind!</p>
<p>re: Bowl game for PSU</p>
<p>Oh I don’t know. I suppose I would allow them to have one, conditioned of course on having 40 naked boys lead the team onto the field. Symbolism is important.</p>
<p>He and his attorney have the right to hire whomever and say whatever they want. It just comes across as a comedy of errors. Did they ever find a judge with no conflicting interest?</p>
<p>Nice, NewHope.</p>
<p>OhioMom3000. I think all the local judges recused themselves. Hopefully the next judge will not give a light bail for a predator</p>
<p>Would this happen anywhere else in the country (bail)? He’s a danger to the public and a flight risk.</p>
<p>I am astounded by the brazen arrogance of that man. </p>
<p>Sometimes when people get away with something for so long, they believe it is owed to them to get away with it forever.</p>
<p>I worked with a man who had been with the company for many years. He did as little work as possible, but had a connection with the boss, who let him get away with it. When the boss retired, he continued with his poor work ethic, and was let go. He blamed everyone around him for getting laid off, rather than himself. He was truly surprised and angry that he was laid off, and accused several co-workers of turning the new boss against him. </p>
<p>And I think he really believed that, because by getting away with it, he was taught over the years that he was doing nothing wrong.</p>