Comments on: Bill James doubles down on the Joe Paterno defense

By: powercorrupts2

powercorrupts2 — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:17:13 +0000

To Craig Calcaterra:
My position is that the Freeh Report is: (1) An ex parte document (not an independent report) that was funded with millions of dollars by parties who have a conflict of interest in the case; (2) written in a prosecutorial fashion with no apparent concern for innocence; (3) criticizes the actions of people using a hindsight perspective that employs information none of them knew; (4) does not contain response by the accused parties (Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, etc.); (5) is written by someone who has a checkered history and may have a biased view of the case.
You need to read the actual report (not just its recommendations/conclusions) and look at the details to see if they support the opinions expressed. Pretend you don’t know that Sandusky has 10 victims accusing him and has been convicted (Paterno didn’t know this in 1998 or 2001). Then see if you can fairly come to the same conclusions as Freeh wrote in his report. But it may not be possible for you to view the evidence without the biases that you seem to already have embedded in your thinking. See how it goes.
The 1998 complaint was not for rape as you previously stated but for giving a bear hug to a boy in the showers. This was reported to the Police and investigated by a Police detective, the PA Department of Public Welfare in Harrisburg, the Centre County Child and Youth Services (CCYS), a CCYS counselor who interviewed the child and wrote a report, and the Centre County DA’s Office. These investigators were aware of a 1998 report by the boy’s State College child psychologist that suggested that Sandusky’s behavior was similar to that of a pedophile. So they were aware of and must have considered this possibility. But the conclusion of the investigation was: “no sexual assault occurred”. No charges were filed. Are you and Freeh maintaining that the investigators protected a pedophile because of “reverence for the football program”? They had no connection to the University except for the detective. He (Schaeffler) testified that he was not subject to influence in any way by the University or the football program. There is no law that states adults cannot shower with children. It is a practice that occurs in our society today. Giving a “bear hug” is another issue but this was investigated by the appropriate authorities.
So you are saying that Paterno (a football coach, a layman, untrained in recognizing pedophiles) was supposed to do what about this report by the experts? Who was he supposed to call? The National Guard? The FBI (no jurisdiction). But the FBI Director, Freeh, was busy at the time (1998 -2001) with: (1) the 1997 manslaughter charge against the FBI sharpshooter he inappropriately sent to Ruby Ridge and who killed Vicki Weaver while she was holding her 10 month old child; (2) as a co-defendant in Zieger v. Metzinger (a Federal case) over FBI conduct in investigating a NYC film; (3) the 1999 Wen Ho Lee Los Alamos spy case Freeh was accused of bungling; (4) the case of Robert Hanssen , a Soviet spy/mole, found to have existed in the FBI for about 10 years of Freeh’s tenure; etc.. And Freeh’s opinions are highly regarded? In 1997 Freeh wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno: “It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent Counsel.” The Attorney General rejected his request. Freeh’s partner, Stanley Sporkin, served as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement. And of course you know what that means he presided over. It wasn’t college football.
Saying Paterno concealed the 1998 investigation is ludicrous. There is no document or witness that proves that Paterno concealed anything.
Paterno lied? At the 2011 Grand Jury he was asked: “do you know…of any other (other than McQueary’s report) sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?” Paterno answered: “I do not know of it.” (Remember the 1998 conclusion was ‘no sexual assault occurred’) and “I don’t remember….” (This is normal for 85 years old and one year prior to death from oat cell carcinoma which usually metastasizes to the brain). The facts support Paterno. And what reason did he have to lie? Lying and cover ups were something he was not known for over the past 50 years. The same cannot be said about Freeh. Paterno testified to the Grand Jury but was not indicted.
McQueary’s testimony by itself is not creditable enough to convict anyone of anything. (1)He changed what he said several times making it more incriminating after he knew there were 10 victims stating they were molested. His initial story was not “I saw Sandusky raping a child and something has to be done immediately!” His first story was of only hearing something and seeing a reflection in a mirror of Sandusky standing behind a child in the shower. (2)McQueary did not intervene to protect the child at the time of the incident. This suggests he didn’t actually see child rape. (3)A trained observer (Dr Dranov) heard McQueary’s story immediately after the event and he did not feel compelled to do anything. Being that Dr. Dranov is a very reputable and reliable person, it can be assumed he didn’t report it because he didn’t feel it crossed the threshold for reporting. Why did Freeh leave Dr. Dranov out of his investigation? Was it because his testimony and actions might conflict with Freeh’s preconceived conclusions? (4)The alleged victim never came forward to accuse Sandusky or testify as to what happened in the shower. (5) Paterno waiting from Saturday morning until Monday to report McQueary’s story is another indication that it wasn’t presented to him by McQueary as a child rape. (6) Notes of the child interview and a physical demonstration by the child to investigators in 1998: “Jerry hugged from back. Hands around abdomen and down to thighs. Picked him up.” This sounds similar to what McQueary described. The conclusion in 1998 was “no sexual assault occurred”. (7) McQueary did not call the Police. McQueary’s father who heard the story did not call the Police, etc. When 75 yo football coach, layman Paterno heard the story he told his superiors who included the Director of the Police. And Paterno is guilty of what? Freeh maintains that Schultz changed his plan of how to deal with McQueary’s story in 2001, after talking to Paterno. But there is no record of their conversation and Freeh has no testimony on this by either Schultz or Paterno. Is it not also possible that Paterno said to Schultz: “I don’t remember the details, but wasn’t the conclusion from the experts in 1998 ‘no sexual assault occurred’? Afterwards, Schultz notes the extensive investigation by authorities in 1998, the similarity of the McQueary story to the 1998 incident and that Sandusky had been investigated by appropriate authorities several times for foster care and adoption and approved. And then he changes his plan on what to do. There is no written proof, testimony or reference to a “desire to avoid bad publicity” discussion with Paterno. Paterno stated that the reason he did not pursue the McQueary incident was because “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was.”
“Penn State brass and Paterno ‘failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized’”.
From the 1998 investigation report there were no victims. In 2001 the evidence was at best ambiguous. There was no victim identified or accuser coming forward. This means you are suggesting that individuals untrained in recognizing pedophilia were supposed to accuse Sandusky of pedophilia when multiple investigations of him came up with nothing and there were no victims they could identify. What standard are you holding them to? Do you honestly think that these fathers of children would protect a person they knew was a pedophile? Jim Boeheim called a press conference specifically to call Bernie Fine’s accusers liars. Paterno never would have done that but you attack him and not Boeheim. Paterno could not have restricted Sandusky’s access to Penn State athletic facilities because the Penn State General Counsel stated the University could not legally take his keys.
“repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities,….”
Freeh never proved this. Paterno never concealed anything. Spanier’s megalomania interfered with his relationship with the Board of Trustees but I don’t think this is necessarily unusual or that he purposely protected a pedophile.
Freeh chastises Penn State for noncompliance with the Clery Act but admits that since his investigation began they have come into compliance. What percentage of US universities is in full compliance with the Clery Act? And it is the Senior VP-Business and finance that was responsible for Clery Act compliance and not the football coach. Freeh criticizes Penn State for “an excessive focus on athletics”. But Paterno championed a Classics Department, donated more than a million for a new library, raised money for academics and an endowment, created a football team with one of the highest graduation rates in Division 1A, etc. Maybe Freeh needs to examine what Title IX did for women in our society or why businesses have a preference for people who have experience in being team players.
I hope that in the future you base your articles on objective investigation and avoid knee jerk condemnations and contributing to lynch mob psychology. Some people feel that there should be a Death Penalty for bad sports writing. Be careful you are not included in that discussion. Take an ethics in journalism course.
Disclaimer: I’m not in any way connected to the Paterno family, Penn State or its administrators or football team.

By: herbie5x

herbie5x — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:13:19 +0000

If Bill James is actually a Red Sox employee, he will soon be fired for his stupidity!!

Sandusky was the coach of “linebacker u” under joeheaduphisolda##! To all who say they weren’t close have theirheaduptheira##!! joeheaduphisolda## didn’t even kick him out of his office let alone the building!! The FACTS are joeheaduphisold## wanted to maintain his FAMILY empire!! Jay was in line to be the next head coach
in joeheaduphisolda## perfect world!! Use of a suite free for 25 years watching the
s##tin mouth continue the wonderful family legacy. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERED
to them!!! Protect at all cost!! Well that cost will be astronomical $$$$$$$!!!!!

By: sparky1002

sparky1002 — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:28:35 +0000

Seems to me many of the people wondering how something like this can happen for so long are the very people who contribute to such things when they laud sports figures as “flawless heroes” to the point sports figures take on a premadonna attitude that allows them to commit the rape of young men while their influence does the silencing. Wasn`t there something about removing a halo from a mans painting somewhere, also something about tearing down a mans statue? Statues and halos…obviously a man with no real influence as regards Paterno`s ability to stop the Sandusky rapes, or is it more likely Paterno instigated a coverup with the intent to protect his own heritage and as a consequence involved those he answered to, a kind of mutual protection service open only to those involved. What kind of conscience exists within the minds of such people that they can go for many years concealing such actions? I am not speaking of perfection in anyone, we all have shortcomings of some sort, but the coverup of repeated rapes at the hands of those any student should be able to trust, is an out and out crime, and those who were active in the coverup have made themselves co-defendants by virtue of doing nothing to stop it after having knowledge of it for years.

By: ck101

ck101 — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:41:14 +0000

What strikes me most is Neyer’s tone – thank heavens Bill is out there bravely asking these tough questions that no one else will, and we’re all just fortunate to be walking the earth at the same time as this intellectual colossus who shows us the truth. In the comments he even says he thinks the Red Sox should have praised his willingness to speak his mind, rather than silencing him.

I get the longstanding professional and personal relationship between the two, and that you can’t really expect him to be entirely unbiased on the subject, but I don’t think Neyer really helped himself or James much here.

By: grandpasmind

grandpasmind — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:11:21 +0000

Bill James may be right that it was routine for men to shower w/ boys 40 years ago. I wouldn’t say that it was routine for men to shower one-on-one with boys. In any event, 1998 was not 40 years ago. The complaint at that time was for Sandusky showering alone with a teenage boy, and it was part of a pattern of sexual conduct. What if it was Bill James’ son in that situation? Would he think the fact that no criminal charges were filed meant it was nothing to worry about? In my view, JoePa cannot be credibly defended from the charge of turning a blind eye to Sandusky’s crimes. He didn’t know exactly what was going on, because he didn’t want to know. He handled it like someone more concerned w/ avoiding bad publicity than w/ doing the right thing.

By: thinkfirstthentalk

thinkfirstthentalk — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:39:22 +0000

Stercuilus65: tell me where i go wrong. I am open to changing my mind, but simply calling my defense laughable wont do it.

By: stercuilus65

stercuilus65 — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:42:33 +0000

ck101- so Neyer comes out defending James, what a surprise! I’m shocked!

thinkfirstthentalk – do you really believe that garbage? Your defense is laughable.

By: thinkfirstthentalk

thinkfirstthentalk — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:10:12 +0000

To powercorrupts2: i agree with you 100%. I have been so ticked off reading comments from people that confuse the facts and simply regurgitate what all of the uneducated talking heads in the media are stating, or repeating Freehs summary, which i dont think correlates with the facts in the report. We will never be able to hear Joe Paterno defend himself and his actions, but until some can PROVE to me that he told Curry, Schultz, and Spanier to do nothing, to not do their jobs, i will give the man the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is latching onto Curry’s email of changing his mind after talking to Paterno, but no one knows what was said. Paterno had no great love for Sandusky, and he was a smart man. If you accuse him of being selfish about defending his kingdom, then it follows that he would be the first to out Sandusky and get him distanced from Penn States image, not bury it. And finally, only ONE person knows what he saw in the shower room in 2001, and that is McQueary. If what he saw was truly so heinous, he should have followed up. He was an adult at the time and i believe he is probably a decent person until someone can show me otherwise. I cant believe he would simply get their attention to make “it” stop and then leave the young boy if he thought the boy was in danger. If he did not feel the actions taken by upper management were sufficient he could have gone straight to the police, or the FBI if he doubted anyones ability to act independently. But he didnt.

By: ck101

ck101 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:16:25 +0000

The plot thickens: Rob Neyer, who got his start with Bill James, points out that James and Posnanski are friendly, and that James has read an advance copy. And says that James may have gotten from Posnanski the theory that Paterno “had very few allies. He was isolated, and he was not nearly as powerful as people imagine him to have been.” (http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/7/16/3161844/bill-james-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky)

He may be right, you know. After all, being able to tell your boss to get loss when he tries to fire you, and getting away with it, as Paterno pulled off, is the sure sign that you really don’t have much power.

By: davidpom50

davidpom50 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:53:48 +0000

Maybe this is a minor, quibble, but I was talking about this earlier, and I don’t think “erased” is the right word. The good he did was still good. It’s just far outweighed by the evil he allowed to happen.

By: gmsingh

gmsingh — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:37:24 +0000

Why not just go whole hog and say the Freeh report was a fake? It’s not like he could sound any stupider.

By: jfk69

jfk69 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:17:00 +0000

This is for you James.
The media is at fault.lol
Don’t confuse a service that reports a story as presented to them by the so called fact gatherers involved in the piece. You must be referring to an investigative journalist or a sixty minute type program. Which by the way would never hire you. Inquiring minds want to know where were you as this unfolded? You strike me as the media type. Up on the old soapbox while peddling free lance pieces to whatever rag needs a filler. This all after the facts are in.

By: jfk69

jfk69 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:52:58 +0000

This is nothing new.
A generation ago we had Covenant House with pedophile priest and master fund raiser Father Ritter. The Churches and Francescans heard the rumors for years and did nothing. Why not you may ask?
Father Ritter has amassed a who’s who of corporation donors in NYC. Of course when finally it could no longer finally be covered up Ritters new pals and partners felt very bad. They forgave him after ten Hail Marys and went then asked not to forget the donation plate on the way out the door. We still have much work to do.

By: jfk69

jfk69 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:10:41 +0000

Bill James
Most of these children had no parents.
If my 11 YEAR OLD son came home and told me you showered with him and you lathered and soaped him up… alone no less . Guess what pal… I am coming for YOU!
If your buddy Joe Pa gets in my way…I will show you what is going to happen to you. Then i will sit down…smoke a cigarette and call the police and my lawyer. SO BE IT!

By: thedistrictattorney

thedistrictattorney — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:15:47 +0000

He has two sons and a daughter. They are all young adults by now.

By: calhounite

calhounite — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:03:23 +0000

Sandusky made it clear to Paterno they were joined at the hip. If Sandusky went down, so would Paterno. Paterno did act. In fact, he did EVERYTHING. Paterno built Sandusky’s gingerbread house so the old warlock could eat all the kids he wanted. Land given. Full access given. Money given. AND posted the guards. Paterno was Sandusky’s protector and facilitator.

The full extent of the depths of this abyss of deviltry may never be known. Paterno’s total control pervaded the entire stankhole, the police, the businesses, the whole area. Perverted toward one single, overriding goal. To concoct an image of the diametric opposite of reality for the purpose of thievery and kingdom building.

The ONLY thing done about the 2001 incident iwas that SANDUSKY was INFORMED that he had been ratted out, and they didn’t want the kid’s name – just take care of it. DA missing and now so’s that kid. Sandusky’s too stupid to provide his own hitman, and too gutless to do it himself. So who did Paterno hire? McQuery alive only after he took a job Paterno had said previously didn’t exist?

Look, given that the sole and only purpose of this Paterno ran stankhole was too steal through imagery, and that image had to be protected at all costs, then what is rank speculation today may turn into fact tommorrow.

By: bdawk20

bdawk20 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:33:22 +0000

Let me simplify this for all of you:

1) Paterno knew about the incident in ’98
2) Despite what the writer here claims about ’98, Paterno did do everything he could have in ’98. This was an investigation STARTED by police and child welfare, not one started by Penn State as the Mom reported it to the proper authorities. Paterno kept in lockstep with the investigation.
3) McQueery told Paterno he saw something of a SEXUAL nature (This is from Paterno himself) when reporting the 2001 incident
4) Paterno, Schultz, Curley, and Spanier ultimately decided together to not go to the authorities with this, but keep this in-house
5) Paterno trusted McQueery’s judgement enough to hire him as a coach on his football staff a few years later, eliminating any possibility that they did not take his claims seriously
6) Paterno ultimately failed by not using ’98 as a major red flag for when McQueery reported about the incident in 2001.

Summation: Paterno and Penn State should have cut ties with Sandusky AND reported him to the proper authorities. Paterno, McQueery, Schultz, Spanier, and Curley all let Sandusky roam free without reprimand with victims for the next 10 years on Penn State grounds, to and from away games, and with his charity the Second Mile. They all enabled him and did not protect those poor kids. This is why their legacies should and will be shattered.

By: steveswisher1

steveswisher1 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:17:36 +0000

Great call, PowerCorrupts. I can just imagine the conversation:

Mike McQueary: “Coach, I saw something really messed-up in the shower the other night. I saw Coach Sandusky raping a young boy.”
Paterno: “Whoa. How did you know that was happening?”
MM: “Well, I heard a slapping noise and I saw Sandusky behind the boy, who had his hands on the wall. Both were naked.”
Paterno: “A-ha! You see, I am an expert in the acoustics of man-on-boy rape in the shower, and I know that this is not actually what you witnessed! On your way, McQueary!”
MM: “But… but…”
Paterno: “Begone!”

Just in case you don’t get that, PowerCorrupts, that is a joke. And it’s at your expense. Because with your Olga Korbut-caliber gyrations to see the facts as you wish, your Latin legal quotes and references to Nietzsche, and your overall patronizing tone, you sound like a pretentious douchebag. (Oops, did I diminish my writing by using an “obscenity”? Tut tut! I hope your monocle didn’t fall out of your eye.)

But wait — I must have this wrong. As I re-read your post, there is absolutely no conceivable way that you could cast doubt on Paterno’s culpability because McQueary didn’t take an audiometric test. I refuse to believe you have a functioning heart and think Mike McQueary didn’t see a boy being raped. There is no way that you think the most powerful man at that university — arguably in the state — couldn’t have done anything to prevent Sandusky from carrying out his molestations (which, as everyone seems to agree, Paterno knew were happening.)

So… never mind. I get it now. You’re just being a troll. Good job! You win. Because if that’s not what you’re doing, then you have no soul whatsoever.

By: makeham98

makeham98 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:20:15 +0000

My post is directed to “theawesomersfranchise “, the awesomeidiot who can’t read.

By: makeham98

makeham98 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:18:19 +0000

What are you ranting about? The number of stooges that post around here is amazing, the sanctimonious ignorant crowd can’t stay away.

Have someone read this thread to you. No one – NO ONE – suggested that adults showering with kids is appropriate. My own experience was that my friends and I refused to disrobe in those situations and got out as fast as we could.

How dumb are you? Try reading before you grandstand.

What an idiot.

By: losgatosca

losgatosca — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:01:26 +0000

When ESPN (Rick Reilly) and Bob Costas think the death penalty is warranted it’s going to be hard for the NCAA to do otherwise. The MS-Sports-M is clearly thinking it’s warranted.

Otherwise, they are just like the conspirators at Penn State, putting their personal interests ahead of justice for a tainted program run by pedophile enablers.

If Penn State does not get some dramatic sanctions the criticism will begin adding the NCAA to the list of bad actors.

By: nomahfan

nomahfan — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:07:01 +0000

I’d argue B. Doesn’t anyone remember the way we mocked Paterno for being a senile out of touch old man for the past decade, and now we’re going all Verbal Kint-was-actually-Keyser Sose? http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2002/10/conspiracy_at_state_college.html …or… http://www.theonion.com/articles/penn-state-players-all-worried-theyre-going-to-be,21120/ ..or.. http://www.theonion.com/articles/joe-paterno-still-upset-that-bear-bryant-didnt-sha,22440/

Just saying: our old narrative was wrong. Let’s not be so sure our new one is now perfect.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:33:50 +0000

So it is your position that the Freeh report’s conclusion — that the Penn State brass, including Joe Paterno, “failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized” is wrong. He just lied about that because … why again?

That Freeh’s conclusion that Paterno and the Penn State brass “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the University’s Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large,” in “a callous and shocking disregard for child victims” is again, simply wrong. His investigation is wrong and your view to the contrary is right … why again?

The report’s conclusion that “Mr. Paterno knew about and closely followed a 1998 investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Sandusky with a boy in a football locker room shower but failed to take action” is erroneous, you say? Why is that erroneous?

The conclusions of the report — which contradict Paterno’s sworn testimony — is wrong, but Paterno is right? Despite the fact that Paterno had every reason to lie and Freeh has none? That’s your view.

I do hope you base that on something other than your forensic skin-slapping expertise.

By: powercorrupts2

powercorrupts2 — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:23:58 +0000

To Craig Calcaterra:
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think you have your “facts” straight.
(1) It is not a provable “fact” that Mike McQueary “saw” the rape of a child.
(2) Mike McQueary has changed his testimony of the event in 2001 several times and , therefore, is not a completely reliable witness. From his testimony, he “heard” noises which he later interpreted as sexual activity. He was apparently not convinced enough at the time of the incident to physically intervene to stop the activity and protect the child.
(3) McQueary has never been given a physical (audiometric) test to see if he can distinguish the sounds of sexual activity in the shower from other activities.
(4) Dr. Jonathan Dranov is a highly reputable physician. He graduated from college in Phi Beta Kappa and the premedical honor society, graduated from a prestigious Ivy League medical school, is Board Certified in Internal Medicine, etc., and is trained in and familiar with the mandatory reporting requirements for child molestation and abuse. He is not a football coach or a university administrator. Dr. Dranov heard McQueary’s story from him in close proximity to when the event occurred. Dr. Dranov did not report this to the police or child protection agencies and did not demand that McQueary do so. Therefore, he must not have felt that the information provided by McQueary met the threshold for this type of reporting.
(5) The 1998 investigation was known by the police, the Centre County DA, and the child welfare agencies as well as by the current Governor of PA who was Pennsylvania DA at the time. The Governor is a current member of the Board of Trustees and his political appointees control a sizable portion of The Board. They are the ones who funded the Freeh Report. The above mentioned have as part of their job the protection of children from molestation. They were not football coaches or university administrators. They did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to bring charges against Sandusky.
(6) If Paterno lied, why didn’t last year’s Grand Jury indict him as they did to Curley and Schultz?
Personally I am glad that Sandusky was caught and convicted. It is a great tragedy that any child (or adult) has been subjected to such abuse. But I also think that we must exercise restraint in pointing the finger of responsibility at and damming people who may never have intended to have the outcome that occurred.
“For those who would hunt monsters, be careful that in the process you do not also become a monster, for when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you” – Nietzsche
Please refrain from using obscenities in your writing. It only diminishes it.

By: dannythebisforbeast

dannythebisforbeast — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:58:24 +0000

If its a fact that mcqueary saw a boy bein raped and told paterno that fact. but for some reason that is the ONLY Charge that Sandusky was found innocent on

By: infectorman

infectorman — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:41:10 +0000

Wonder if Bill James has children?

By: Spencer

Spencer — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:28:34 +0000

This is probably true, but it doesn’t make it any better or paint James in a better light. In fact, I think it would make him look worse.

By: mrfloydpink

mrfloydpink — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:18:01 +0000

I’ve agreed with your posts, Kevin, but I would disagree with you on two points here:

1. By defending Paterno, in any way, Bill James could indeed be enabling the next guy. Or, at least, deterring the next kid from reporting abuse. If ANYONE outside the “Penn State family” should be sensitive to this, and should keep their fucking mouths shut, it is a Red Sox executive (given the team’s own pedophile abuse history).

2. I think that the NCAA might have no choice but to hammer Penn State, just because they don’t want to appear to be what they are–a wage-fixing cartel. If systematic coverup of child rape is not a “lack of institutional control” then the phrase will effectively be meaningless to the general public, and the credibility of the NCAA could be permanently ruined.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:03:36 +0000

More proof that smart people can be stupid.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:54:39 +0000

Alright, let’s not get carried away. Bill James is wrong. Incredibly wrong. But raping young boys, and covering up/enabling the continuing rape of young boys, is orders of magnitude worse than ignoring the facts in defending the man who covered up and enabled the rapes to continue. Nothing Bill James says will allow another boy to be raped.

Also, Penn State won’t get the death penalty. The NCAA is a wage-fixing cartel, and the death penalty is its biggest weapon for enforcing that wage fixing. Nothing Penn State did involved players getting extra benefits, so the NCAA won’t act here.