Friday, July 27

The Freeh Report, Joe Paterno and NCAA Sanctions Part One: 1998

A Great Minds Think Alike Coincidence? Walter Uhler's latest offering is also concerns 1998 in detail.
I obviously kid about the "great minds" thing. or do I? 
Given that it was the Freeh Report that provoked both the rash and unconscionably harsh sanctions imposed by the NCAA upon Penn State and the cowardly willingness of the Penn State President and the Board of Trustees to swallow them, I believe it’s time for somebody to conduct a thorough examination of the report, if only to assure that the report’s scathing criticism of Penn State’s response to the 1998 investigation is justified and that its evidence of a cover-up by Penn State in 2001 actually supports the report’s conclusion of a cover-up at Penn State.


  1. You question the Freeh Report's apparent condemnation of Penn State's coaches for not reporting Sandusky being in the showers with young boys by saying :

    "(As a multi-sport athlete in high school, I often showered with coaches and thought nothing of it.)"

    First of all, few, if any, high school coaches are INSANE enough nowadays to get naked in front of their players. Even so, Sandusky wasn't showering with high school kids. He was showering with TEN-YEAR-OLDS. What high school principal would tolerate a head football coach who allows active OR former assistant coaches to bring unrelated (or related, for that matter) ten-year-olds into the team showers? It boggles the mind that anyone would actually consider that appropriate behavior.

    Why don't you try an experiment : Head down to your local high school or college after football practice and walk naked into the shower with YOUR NEIGHBOR'S ten-year old son. See what reaction you get from the coaches and players. Then see what the cops think of it when they arrive.

    Clearly, the Penn State coaches who witnessed Jerry with those boys and didn't report it are despicable.

  2. PRIOR TO the issue of the Freeh Report, PSU amended its Policy Manual to provide :

    "It is the policy of the Pennsylvania State University that all Athletics facilities (spaces typically, but not solely, designated for specific intercollegiate athletic program(s) use) will be accessible only by those University athletes and athletic personnel authorized to access such facilities, and during their normal hours of operation. A valid University identification card is required to gain access."

    It's sad that the coaching staff had to be FORBIDDEN to bring children into the showers in order to stop the practice. In any case, it's clear that Freeh wasn't the only one shocked by the presence of children in Penn State's showers, hence this rule limiting access to athletes and athletic personnel.

    What went wrong in the Penn State football program that allowed coaches to shower with children? I just can't imagine any other college in America where a coach can walk into the team showers with a ten-year-old boy. It's just INSANE.

  3. No - not despicable - simply a generational thing.
    I'm 66 and my experience growing up indicated nothing unusual about males of all ages using the same group showers. That began to change as YMCA's and Rec Centers began to be built with single showers instead of group showers. People who grew up in a time when it was normal wouldn't see anything unusual about it.

    And with Sandusky - as a foster father of 7 - and surrogate father figure for many more as founder of The Second Mile - there was even less reason to think it unusual.

    1. Jerry wasn't accused of raping kids in the shower in 1951. His most notorious shower rape was in 2001. At that time and later, there were assistant coaches in their 30s and grad assistants in their 20s. So let's cut out this "generational" and "female" bullshit.

      Coach Anderson's testimony that man-boy showers were not considered "inappropriate" or "improper" at PSU is more disturbing than even the cover-up. The overwhelming majority of parents of young boys would go BALLISTIC if anyone even suggested that their little boy should get naked in a room full of naked men. They would consider the situation which existed in PSU football showers until the BOT banned children from shower rooms to be PROFOUNDLY sick. The fact that the BOT waited until the day before the Freeh Report was issued to amend their Policy Manual to ban man-boy showers at PSU is beyond shocking.

      If anyone considers man-boy college football shower rooms to be "appropriate" and "proper", I pray that he isn't a college head football coach.

  4. You have to know what other's thought. What you think isn't material to the "understanding" of those who were there.

    A mother's complaint about a shower with a coach wasn't a big issue for this reason expressed quite well by PSU Coach Anderson at the Sandusky trial.

    Dick Anderson, a longtime Penn State assistant who retired in January, testified that he and other members of the football staff were present when Sandusky brought young boys into the team's showers. He said he never witnessed anything inappropriate."If Jerry would bring someone in with The Second Mile, they had been working out, for whatever reason they came in, it was not uncommon ... with the other coaches in the shower as well, adults and children often shower together at gyms. He noted, for example, that it's not unusual for him to be in the showers with boys at the YMCA.

    In a section of the Freeh report on page 40

    Before May 1998, several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with yormg boys in the Lasch Building (now the East Area Locker Building or "Old Lasch”). None of the individuals interviewed by the Special Investigative Cormsel notified their superiors of this behavior. Former Coach Richard Anderson testified at Sanduskys trial in Irme 2012 that he often saw Sandusky in the showers with children in the football facilities but he did not believe the practice to be improper.“

    This is how the staff and coaches accepted what was 'normal' in their experience. You are likely quite younger or perhaps female and did not grow up during a time or in a place where this was usual.

    Besides that - how would anyone know if any child accompanying Sandusky was his foster child? Is that relationship - a father and son or foster father and son or foster grandfather and grandson viewed the same? How would you know the difference?

    1. not sure how on topic this is, but I remember the Rec Hall showers as being very large with lots of shower heads. there weren't any private showers. you took a shower with everybody or you didn't shower.

    2. Seems to be on topic to me Dolly. The anonymous going on about the propriety of group showers appears to be convinced that men and boys or women and girls in the same shower is some kind of clear indication of nefarious sexual intent. An obviously strange and parochial idea born of a secluded or provincial upbringing would be my guess.
      Since I have no idea about group showers for the female gender your input is valuable.

  5. Except Jerry was not JUST showering with young boys.

    He was actually touching them, under the guise of being the ` Tickle Monster .`

    He was also pressing his NAKED body up against their NAKED bodies, saying that he was giving them a ` Bear Hug` and that he was going to `squeeze their guts out `....If he was hugging them like that, of course his genitals would have been pressed up against the kid.

    This is abnormal behavior.....PERIOD.

    1. But there is NO EVIDENCE anyone knew this but CYS, DPW the boys and Jerry Sandusky. Joe and the PSU administrators did not know this but CYS and DPW did know it
      So why did they close the investigation in 1998?
      That is the whole questing we are asking here.

      If DPW and CYS said "not criminal behavior" and "no pedophile tendencies" why would a football coach and a couple of administrators think anything was wrong? Read
      1998:So Close to an END for Sandusky

    2. a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, as part of DPW’s investigation. Counselor John Seasock,opined that "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children." Seasock’s report ruled out that the boy "had been placed in a situation where he was being ‘groomed for future sexual victimization.*
      Why did CYS evaluator Seasock go ahead with this evaluation when DA Arnold instructed it not be done? What additional investigation was Arnold having done? Did that stop when Gricar took over? It seems strange that DPW would use a CYS Evaluator after deciding that CYS had a conflict of interest with The Second Mile. Does someone from the state or The Second Mile want to have Seasock's report instead of Chambers go to Lauro at DPW? Is that why Arnold's directive was ignored? Who could arrange that and go over DA Arnold's head?
      Joe could not have done this - nor Gary or Tim. This had to come from The Second Mile who used Seasock as an evaluator or someone on the state level who could influence DPW investigator Lauro's use of the Seasock report while concealing the existence of the Chambers evaluation. Or am I way off base here? Was this just a simple oversight with disastrous consequences for PSU and Joe? Why isn't Freeh asking these questions? Why does he not point out this rather obvious reason Sandusky was not stopped in 1998 and why Joe and the others may have believed Jerry to be harmless when it was clear to Chambers he was not?
      On May 9, 1998, Schreffler discussed the outcome ot Seasock's evaluation with Seasock. While Seasock said he identified some "gray areas," he did not find evidence of abuse and had never heard of a 52-year-old man "becoming a pedophile." When Schreffer questioned Seasock’s awareness of details of the boy's experience, Seasock acknowledged he was not aware of many of the concerns Schreffler raised but stated Sandusky "didn't fit the profile of a pedophile and that he couldn't find any indication of child abuse.
      This counselor Seasock evaluation is completely opposite of psychologist Chamber's evaluation and was a mistake of monumental ill effect for Joe and PSU. If Jerry had been labeled a potential pedophile in 1998 it would have been a minor blip compared to what has happened. He would have been identified as a potential pedophile for those showers in 1998 and closely watched away from The Second Mile and PSU. Perhaps the earlier victims would have been discovered and perhaps not but he would never have been in that shower in 2001 or if he was and Joe, Tim and Gary knew of the Chambers evaluation it would have ended right then for him. If they knew of Chambers evaluation in 98 instead of Seasock's there should have been no hesitation about involving authorities and faith in those authorities would not have been misplaced.

    3. To Make this simple
      1998 victim 6 comes home with wet hair
      Mother calls Dr Chambers to evaluate her son to see if he was abused.
      Chambers & colleagues think Sandusky is a pedophile
      Chambers calls CYS and launches investigation
      SOMEONE - steps in and say CYS has a conflict of interest
      DPW takes over for CYS but Chambers evaluation is not turned over to DPW investigator
      CYS counselor SEASOCK interviews victim over objection of the DA. WHO AUTHORIZED SEASOCK?
      SEASOCK says Sandusky is not a pedophile
      DPW rules "no criminal behavior" based on Seasock report.

      So the CYS "Child & Youth Services" that does work for The Second Mile is replaced by DPW - Dept of Public Welfare
      and they rule Sandusky's behavior is not improper.

      So why are Joe Tim and Gary and PSU being blamed for not knowing JS was a pedophile???
      answer me that. The agencies who are supposed to protect the kids say JS is fine but Joe is supposed to know he isn't?
      How do you get to that conclusion?

  6. Jerry wasn't convicted of raping kids in 1951. His most notorious shower rape at PSU was in 2001. Some of the assistant coaches at that time and later were in their 30s; the grad assistants were in
    their 20s. So let's cut out that "generational" and "female" bullshit.

    In some ways, Coach Anderson's testimony is more disturbing than the cover-up. He said that he saw Sandusky in the shower with young boys but didn't see anything "inappropriate" or "improper", as if being in a shower with a young boy IS appropriate and proper. The overwhelming majority of parents of young boys would go BALLISTIC at the idea of their son being naked in a room full of adult males. They would consider the situation in the Penn State football facilities, even without the rapes, PROFOUNDLY sick.

    With Aurabass' "liberal" ideas on the appropriateness of man-boy showers, I pray that he isn't a college or high school football head coach.

    1. Nothing "liberal" or "Conservative about the generational difference in the practice of various age males sharing showers. Paterno & most fooball types are conservatives.

      Your inability to grok the information is obvious when you have to resort to ad hominem bullshit like your "I pray" remark. Such weakness under the cover of "anonymous"?
      But keep on typing. Every keystroke reveals your "grasp" of the issues and comments.
      The most disturbing thing here is your comments revealing an arrogance that is typical of self-righteous nimrods who think theirs is the only handle on the reality.
      Not that anyone cares what you think about what is improper or appropriate. We all know that child sexual abuse is what is inappropriate not taking showers. And there is nothing "bullshit" about the changes in facilities for showering in YMCA's, rec centers, and fitness facilities over time and for the opposite genders. Most people have the intelligence to realize that things change.

    2. And as far as anyone knows no shower rape was evident in Feb of 2001 - except for those inclined to believe a Presentment for indictment as unassailable truth. We know for certain from both Mike and Joe that Joe was never told about any shower rape. And we know from Mike's testimony under oath that he never observed one.