Friday, August 12

Coach Bradley Denies Any Knowledge of Sandusky Abuse

by Barry Bozeman

ESPN and other outlets reported yesterday that Coach Tom Bradley stands by his previous statements that he never observed Jerry Sandusky doing anything inappropriate at Penn State despite claims by Mike McQueary that surfaced earlier this summer. 

UCLA defensive coordinator Tom Bradley issued his first public comments since testimony unsealed in July by another former Penn State assistant, Mike McQueary, that indicated Bradley was aware of sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky at Penn State dating to the 1980s. 
"First of all, I've been deposed, I've been vetted. I've issued a statement," said Bradley, a former Penn State assistant coach, following UCLA practice Wednesday. "All of that speaks for itself." 
The previous statement released by his representative, Brett Senior, denied allegations made in testimony from McQueary, who testified Bradley "said he knew of some things" about Sandusky dating to the 1980s. 
"At no time did Tom Bradley ever witness any inappropriate behavior," the statement read. "Nor did he have any knowledge of alleged incidents in the 80's and 90's. He has consistently testified as such. Any assertions to the contrary are false. When he became aware of the 2001 incident it had already been reported to the University administration years earlier."

The reports that appeared in May on NBC evidently included Coach Bradley

Sandusky Case Bombshell: Did 6 Penn State Coaches Witness Abuse?

But sources told NBC News that one former Penn State assistant coach witnessed an incident in the late 1970s. Three other coaches — who have gone on to work in the NFL and at Division I colleges — allegedly saw inappropriate conduct between Sandusky and boys in the early and mid-1990s.
"You won't believe what I just saw," one of those three coaches blurted out after bursting into a room filled with Penn State football staff, according to sources who spoke to a person who was in that room.
A lawyer for one of the three '90s coaches denied his client had seen anything. A second coach declined to comment. A third could not be reached, and the name of the fourth was not disclosed to NBC News.
It appears that Mike McQueary was the source for at least one of these reports that have surfaced to once again muddy the waters and start another media tempest based on flimsy journalism.


  1. Do we know what Bradley testified that Mike McQueary told him about the 2001 shower incident and when Mike told him?

    It seems that what Bradley remembers would either corroborate or contradict McQueary's testimony.

    1. I would rather focus upon how Frank Fina manipulated MM, either by threatening prosecution for illegal gambling and/or sexting, or threatening prosecution of his father and Dr. Dranov for failure to report, resulting in them losing their medical practitioner license. This is Fina's MO. I will also note that nobody has explained why MM associated three random slapping sounds with sex. Associating a sound with an activity is a conditioned response.

    2. Maybe Fina, McQueary and McQueary's lawyer will be called to testify at Sandusky's appeal on those issues. I don't remember McQeary being asked if the prosecution gave him any considerations for his testimony.

      Mike McQueary's players said he told them he was sexually abused as a child so perhaps the slapping sounds triggered a flashback to McQueary's own abuse. McQueary was never questioned about his own sexual abuse.

      I always thought McQueary's claim that he believed people were having sex in the locker room before he entered did not ring true. Who would want to deliberately walk in on people having sex?

  2. The media types just can't help them selves. They all want to ride this train in hopes of getting the Pullitzer Prize for fact-Freeh reporting (pun intended). As a kid I laughed every time I saw the National Inquirer in the check out line of the grocery store. Now, with 24/7 news they all have the same reporting culture that NI had many years ago.

    If they only took to time to understand the integrity and morals of the Joe we all know. (Not to mention Spanier, Curley, and Schultz)

    The media has taken something from all of us in the railroading of PSU and 4 good men. There is no undo button regardless of how this plays out legally. Such a shame for Joe, his legacy, his family, Penn State and the Penn Statue alums, and CSS.

  3. I agree with the comments above. I am not giving a pass to the procecutors (especially Fina), Corbett or to the PSU BoT. Their bahaviour was more than shameful. If they were corporate officers they all would have been removed. Fina should lose his law license at best.

  4. Really? Bradley denies seeing Sandusky abuse kids? Imagine that. Is anyone ever going to 'report what they saw' so many years ago? Ever? I think this prosecution team and the media morality enforcement team took care of that EVER happening again. No one will ever be dumb enough to do that again lest they get 'Paterno'd'. Not that I think Bradley has any culpability in protecting Sandusky. Just that whatever he may have seen is probably a minor incident that he will now take to his grave for sure.

    1. The allegation by McQueary was not that Bradley saw anything but that another coach told Bradley he saw something. So it was double hearsay by McQueary, who is suing Penn State.

      McQueary never mentioned this latest allegation at the Sandusky trial but came up with the new testimony when the insurance company deposed him.

      McQueary essentially has a license to lie. No prosecutor will charge him with perjury because it would give Sandusky grounds for an appeal.

    2. So if if I work with a guy who is married to someone who met someone in a mall that has a cousin who is in a chess club with someone who saw Sandusky taking a leak next to an 11 year old boy, will I be subpoenaed to testify? Can I be charged with a failure to protect children? This witch-hunt is preposterous.