PonyFans.com

This quote from a CBS Sports story today about Penn State:

With Baylor seemingly running away with the title of most embarrassing university in collegiate athletics, a Penn State trustee has said “hold my beer.”

Friday, former Penn State president Graham Spanier was found guilty on one count of endangering the welfare of children in a trial related to his role in the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal. In an email to the Chronicle of Higher Education this week, PSU trustee Albert Lord had sharp words for the victims of Sandusky, who was found guilty on 45 of 48 child-sex abuse charges in June of 2012 and is currently serving a sentence of at least 30 years.

“Running out of sympathy for 35 yr old, so-called victims with 7 digit net worth,” the trustee wrote in a portion of the email. “Do not understand why they were so prominent in trial. As you learned, Graham Spanier never knew Sandusky abused anyone.”
-------------------------
How do people of this caliber serve on institutions of "higher learning." Don't answer that. It's rhetorical....

not poking this - just asking since I don't know. What exactly was his role? If it happened on his watch, this seems like an excessive finding, and might have been lawyers trolling for dollars. If he knew, and did nothing, than it seems deserved. Anyone know?

As this was a criminal conviction, I'm not sure how "lawyers trolling for dollars" would apply.

not a lawyer, but once the criminal conviction has occurred isn't the civil conviction easier - or more likely a settlement of a civil suit becomes easier and dollars bigger? Isn't that the normal game?

Civil conviction is easier due to being based on preponderance of evidence versus reasonable doubt (see OJ).

gostangs wrote:not poking this - just asking since I don't know. What exactly was his role? If it happened on his watch, this seems like an excessive finding, and might have been lawyers trolling for dollars. If he knew, and did nothing, than it seems deserved. Anyone know?

The gist of the allegations against Spainer was that during his tenure at Penn State he was told about the allegations involving Jerry Sandusky. As president of the Board, he was duty bound to go to the police since the issues involved a child and took place on the campus of Penn State. He chose to defer to Joe Paterno and his staff to handle the matter, and in doing so, failed in his obligations to children who were on the Penn State campus and suffered a wrong.

The prosecution argued that athletic director Tim Curley along with Gary Schultz (vice president of the University), acted in a manner that put the financial interests of the University above the well-being of the child. Curley and Schultz plead out and cooperated in pointing the finger at the top man on campus, Spainer.

Penn State has already paid in excess of $93 million to settle with the victims of Sandusky.

In my opinion, Baylor's risk is more along the lines of $200 million because there was a finding by their own audit that the university wholly failed to protect its students from known sexual predators that Baylor brought on campus to play football and in doing so, placed an undisclosed number of women at risk. There are many others who were victims but are afraid to come forward because there is evidence of relationships, drugs, alcohol and the victims will be "victimized" a second time.

Their position has been recently reinforced by a Penn State trustee who this week said he was starting to lose sympathy of Sandusky's victims and their "seven figure settlements..."

Penn State was about the coaches and administrators "covering" for a guy that was using his University association to lure and abuse children. It was criminal and between the law and the University. NCAA sanctions were overturned because they overstepped their bounds and sanctioned the football program. No student athletes were involved with this coverup and the sanctions were illegitimate.

The opposites was the case at Baylor. Multiple students and student athletes were involved. The NCAA (and Big 12 Conference) should intervene here but are now afraid to do so.

The distinction between Penn St/Baylor type cases has nothing to do with whether students are involved (a school can be punished based solely on Coaches conduct if prohibited by NCAA Bylaws)-the key distinction in those type of cases is that NCAA has no bylaws specifying the type of conduct/violation that is prohibited and providing specific sanctions in the Bylaws for that conduct/violation. NCAA Manual doesn't go into Assault, Sexual Assault, Battery, Child abuse. The federal and state courts are the only tribunals with the practical and legal ability to provide reasonable due process in criminal matters. For example, are the NCAA judges even trained to understand the unique nuances of criminal law (like consent, self-defense etc) in all 50 states-I doubt it. That's why we have a Penal Code and trial, appellate and supreme courts because they are specially equipped and experienced to handle those cases. NCAA should stay out of the entire area unless the crime actually violated a specific NCAA Bylaw. Ex. Dave Bliss violated NCAA rules by secretly paying for the tuition of the Baylor player that was murdered during his transfer year because NCAA only allowed 13 scholarship players in basketball. Case involved both a crime under the Penal Code and an NCAA violation under NCAA Bylaws.

Funny how paying a player is somehow worse than covering up the murder of one.

Junior wrote:Funny how paying a player is somehow worse than covering up the murder of one.

Funnier yet, what we did to get the DP is now sanctioned by the NCAA.

Both institutions have or will pay-out hundreds of millions of damages-its just not litigated by the NCAA.

mrydel wrote:

Junior wrote:Funny how paying a player is somehow worse than covering up the murder of one.

Funnier yet, what we did to get the DP is now sanctioned by the NCAA.

practically true-but not factually true as many of SMU's violations involved recruiting inducements to convince a recruit to sign a Letter of Intent. All of that is still a violation of NCAA rules. Recruiting inducements have always been the major focus on the NCAA. The real "cheating" is getting top recruits to sign by paying them before they enroll because that gives a school a competitive advantage. Give me one Eric Dickerson and that's a monumental competitive advantage. No one really gives a damn about a little payola once they get to school which the NCAA has now recognized. Nobody except for the NCAA ever really cared about it-and it was recognized to go on at every school

Stallion wrote:

mrydel wrote:

Junior wrote:Funny how paying a player is somehow worse than covering up the murder of one.

Funnier yet, what we did to get the DP is now sanctioned by the NCAA.

practically true-but not factually true as many of SMU's violations involved recruiting inducements to convince a recruit to sign a Letter of Intent. All of that is still a violation of NCAA rules. Recruiting inducements have always been the major focus on the NCAA. The real "cheating" is getting top recruits to sign by paying them before they enroll because that gives a school a competitive advantage. Give me one Eric Dickerson and that's a monumental competitive advantage. No one really gives a damn about a little payola once they get to school which the NCAA has now recognized. Nobody except for the NCAA ever really cared about it-and it was recognized to go on at every school

So hiring prostitutes for current players is ok - but doing so for recruits is against the rules. That makes sense.

Now I understand why Pitino is banned from coaching next year, Louisville is banned from the NCAA tournament, and they will have limited scholarships for the next four years at Lou.

Stallion wrote:

mrydel wrote:

Junior wrote:Funny how paying a player is somehow worse than covering up the murder of one.

Funnier yet, what we did to get the DP is now sanctioned by the NCAA.

practically true-but not factually true as many of SMU's violations involved recruiting inducements to convince a recruit to sign a Letter of Intent. All of that is still a violation of NCAA rules. Recruiting inducements have always been the major focus on the NCAA. The real "cheating" is getting top recruits to sign by paying them before they enroll because that gives a school a competitive advantage. Give me one Eric Dickerson and that's a monumental competitive advantage. No one really gives a damn about a little payola once they get to school which the NCAA has now recognized. Nobody except for the NCAA ever really cared about it-and it was recognized to go on at every school

I understand that but now you can tell them what they will get when they enroll and the "special" inducements continue during recruiting. We got the DP when it was discovered we were continuing to pay players on the team after we said we had stopped.

Yet Baylor gets a pass for it's "lack of institutional control"?