• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Penn State Cult (Joe Knew)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
409fold said:
Louis Freeh and the NCAA were in frequent communication with each other in the November 2011 - June 2012 time frame. See link below.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...gether-penn-state-nittany-lions-investigation

Articles like that make me think (I would put the odds of such north of 90%) that the NCAA WAS pressuring Freeh to find an NCAA violation. We'll probably agree to disagree, but I'm rather firm in my belief that the "absence of materials is a form of tangible proof in its own way" (as regards a lack of NCAA violations to attach to "Bylaw 10.1").

Another note on that article: I'm a business consultant in real-life. I realize that when I sign on to do work, the communication in terms of results should be ONLY with my client: they are paying me, they are the only ones that I talk about my work with unless I get express permission from them. I believe that is the ethical way to act.

As I've said before, I believe Freeh's conclusions were generally correct. But Freeh, in terms of the role he signed on with Penn State, was a consultant of sorts too. Unless Penn State told him he could communicate with the NCAA (maybe they did) --- I find his communication with the NCAA prior to report-delivery to be rather questionable behavior.
Click to expand...
You're assuming an awful lot....and you're ignoring the point that the scope of what Freeh was looking for was Sandusky related only.
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
Anyway --- the Freeh Report, I do think it's fair that if one (a) takes everything that is in it as facts and proof that stuff occurred, it's is ALSO fair to say (b) if something is not included in the Freeh Report, there's a pretty fair chance it didn't occur. If you get Emmert in a candid moment, I'm sure he'd admit that he would have preferred to also attach an actual NCAA violation to the consent decree, as opposed to solely relying on "Bylaw 10.1." But he didn't attach an actual NCAA violation. Because of such, I don't think I'm incorrect in thinking that such a violation was NEVER found.
Click to expand...

Again the Freeh report had very specific parameters of 1998-2012. Freeh also didn't have access to all the email correspondence because all of the email archives were mysteriously lost in an 'upgrade' process that sounded very suspicious. Freeh probably got about 10% of what still existed and even that was cleansed to certain degree. Spanier was notorious for sending emails on everything and yet there are so few of his emails even available to review. But the ones that were yielded some excellent detail about the communication around Jerry. JoePed was a meticulous note taker and yet his notebook(s) from this era and these meetings are missing. Coincidence?

I have no idea why you mention an NDA??? An NDA certainly exists between PSU and Freeh's firm but the report itself is open to public for all to read. That's standard practice.

409fold said:
Even if Spanier was consulted on "tatgate" (or more correctly, "not reporting what he should have clearly known was an NCAA infraction"-gate) --- so what? The Tressel case was not very complex to adjudicate, it was a very black and white issue. It doesn't matter who was "consulted", the end result would have been the same: some form of punishment for both Tressel and OSU.
Click to expand...

It's important because of the punitive actions taken against JT - a 5 year no show clause for something in the grand scheme of life that was pretty minor. Spanier weighed in on that at a time when he was tuning a blind eye to a serial pedophile on his own campus. Compare and contrast those two actions.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
You're assuming an awful lot....and you're ignoring the point that the scope of what Freeh was looking for was Sandusky related only.
Click to expand...

Sure --- Freeh's scope was looking at only Sandusky related. Let's talk about the NCAA's "scope." Don't they want to make as strong a case as possible before coming down with penalties? Attaching a few actual NCAA violations certainly could not have hurt things. Especially given that they had never before administered penalties while SOLELY referring to "Bylaw 10.1."

It is a fact that the NCAA met a-dozen-and-a-half separate times with Freeh over the December 2011 - June 2012 period. It is also a fact that the NCAA never admitted this themselves, it only came out because of a lawsuit. Why is that?

At the least, that should be an eye-brow raiser. The NCAA wasn't Freeh's client. Penn State was. Yet the NCAA is asking questions of Louis Freeh that strongly suggest they are looking for violations non-related to Sandusky (the 32 questions that they asked on 28-December-2011, that are explicitly listed in the court documents at the link if you wish to open them).
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
Sure --- Freeh's scope was looking at only Sandusky related. Let's talk about the NCAA's "scope." Don't they want to make as strong a case as possible before coming down with penalties? Attaching a few actual NCAA violations certainly could not have hurt things. Especially given that they had never before administered penalties while SOLELY referring to "Bylaw 10.1."

It is a fact that the NCAA met a-dozen-and-a-half separate times with Freeh over the December 2011 - June 2012 period. It is also a fact that the NCAA never admitted this themselves, it only came out because of a lawsuit. Why is that?

At the least, that should be an eye-brow raiser. The NCAA wasn't Freeh's client. Penn State was. Yet the NCAA is asking questions of Louis Freeh that strongly suggest they are looking for violations non-related to Sandusky (the 32 questions that they asked on 28-December-2011, that are explicitly listed in the court documents at the link if you wish to open them).
Click to expand...
Again...you're assuming a hell of a lot.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
Again...you're assuming a hell of a lot.
Click to expand...

Sure, of course I'm assuming some stuff.

Is what it is: Freeh and the NCAA were communicating from December 2011 - June 2012. Given that the NCAA wasn't Freeh's client, and given that the NCAA never admitted this prior to it coming out-in-court, people will speculate as to why?. Fair enough if that's a question you find not worthy of discussion.
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
Sure, of course I'm assuming some stuff.

Is what it is: Freeh and the NCAA were communicating from December 2011 - June 2012. Given that the NCAA wasn't Freeh's client, and given that the NCAA never admitted this prior to it coming out-in-court, people will speculate as to why?. Fair enough if that's a question you find not worthy of discussion.
Click to expand...
It's a fair question, but again, it would have been a serious breech of Freeh's agreement with Penn State to report anything to the NCAA, even though they could pretty much ask whatever they wanted - there's no indication that he actually told them anything that wasn't in the report. As to Emmert, virtually everyone outside of Happy Valley was demanding that he do something. I'm sure he would have liked to have had some violations to throw on the pile, but I think that he wanted to get Penn State to agree to something as soon as he could.
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
Yep. DelawareBuck and I ought to meet somewhere (perhaps the outlet malls on I-71, which are about half-way between Cincinnati and Delaware, assuming it's Delaware, OH) and just chat this over in-person vs. over the board. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
The state of Delaware not the town in Ohio. This is a where Louis Freeh also happens to live and work and his kids go to school locally. If you knew half the harassment his family has had to endure from your fans and alumni you'd be embarrassed to be associated with PSU.
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
To be clear, which of these 2 are you arguing --- "they deserved no leniency" or "they didn't deserve a chance to advocate for leniency."?
Click to expand...

I was looking at the Lasch building incident through the prism of what was widely-released information shortly after the scandal broke -- that the police were never contacted. There's no real debate or gray-area about that. I guess I guess am arguing "they deserved no leniency" because it seems preposterous to me to even make a case for leniency when it was already out there before the consent decree was signed that the school knew about the Lasch incident for 10 years and did nothing.

What would the argument for leniency even be, given what we knew before the consent decree was signed?
 
Upvote 0
Joe Pa Thetic said:
I was looking at the Lasch building incident through the prism of what was widely-released information shortly after the scandal broke -- that the police were never contacted. There's no real debate or gray-area about that. I guess I guess am arguing "they deserved no leniency" because it seems preposterous to me to even make a case for leniency when it was already out there before the consent decree was signed that the school knew about the Lasch incident for 10 years and did nothing.

What would the argument for leniency even be, given what we knew before the consent decree was signed?
Click to expand...

See my post on Page 1282.
 
Upvote 0
Delaware Buck said:
The state of Delaware not the town in Ohio. This is a where Louis Freeh also happens to live and work and his kids go to school locally. If you knew half the harassment his family has had to endure from your fans and alumni you'd be embarrassed to be associated with PSU.
Click to expand...

I'm not doing that and I've never done anything wrong --- I have nothing to be embarrassed about, as regards my alma mater (Penn State).
 
Upvote 0
580x350xJOE-PA-COLLAGE-e1412281210439.jpg.pagespeed.ic.zf5xra0vAO.jpg
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top