By
Ray Blehar
A rarely seen video, with only 156 views as of 24 January 2014, indicated that PSU President Rodney Erickson was in dialog with the NCAA on the sanctions that would be handed down at PSU.
At around 2:35 on the video Erickson states, "once the NCAA has that, we'll continue in dialog with them about what are appropriate sanctions."
The "that" Erickson made reference to was PSU's response to the NCAA letter of November 17, 2011.
According to a December 12, 2011 letter from PSU, signed by Cynthia Baldwin, she had discussed the NCAA's letter with NCAA President Mark Emmert and NCAA general counsel Donald Remy on November 23rd. The letter proposed that PSU wait until the completion of the investigation by the Special Investigation Task force and gave the NCAA permission to monitor the investigation.
The December 12 letter also gave the NCAA the option of accepting the report of the investigation (i.e, which would become the Freeh Report) as the University's response.
In the NCAA response to PSU on December 20th, NCAA counsel Remy wrote:
"Once the work of the Special Investigations Task Force is complete, we will be better able to determine the substance and timeline for your responding to the questions we have posed to Penn State."
As the Freeh Report was issued on July 12 and the video recorded on July 17, it appears that Erickson and PSU were preparing a response (or perhaps a proposal) to the NCAA.
If that was the case, there was no "cram down," but rather an agreement on harsh sanctions that Erickson and the NCAA believed would effectively cause the Penn State football program to collapse.
That scenario would seem to indicate this was not a "cram down" -- but instead, collusion.
While Don Van Natta reported that NCAA President Mark Emmert said the Executive Committee of the NCAA had voted to give PSU the Death Penalty and Erickson, et al, publicly agreed with Emmert's characterization of the negotiations, Oregon State's Ed Ray stated the Ex Comm voted against suspension of play.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2012/07/oregon_state_beavers_a_qa_with.html
I suspect Ed Ray is telling the truth and that Erickson and Emmert are lying. Erickson told the press in December 2011 that he wanted research and academics to be the face of Penn State University - and not football.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-12-06/penn-state-rodney-erickson-interview-football-emphasis/51686080/1
Everyone knows the "face" of Penn State was Joe Paterno. Erickson had that face (statue) removed.
And, of course, Erickson was clueless and didn't realize that the "face" of Penn State valued academics over athletics. How many national championship football coaches tell the BOT that the university needs a library the football team can be proud of?
DeleteI don't suppose the interviewer in the little-seen video would be interested in taking a harder look at the Sandusky/ Penn State story? Just maybe she has some curiosity and drive to solve puzzles. I would imagine that at least some still pursue careers in journalism for its investigative nature.
ReplyDeleteHave you talked with Erickson's interviewer?
Yes, I've talked to her. She's not that interested.
DeleteRay, have you considered giving the evidence you have to PBS's Frontline? They have done some decent investigative reports and might be able to give our side of the story more national exposure.
DeleteNowhisky,
DeleteA few media types have talked to me and asked me to give over the evidence I have so they could do a story, but I refused. I don't think anyone in the media would take the time to do the story right.
I tell them all the same thing - they'll find out after the next few rounds of arrests.
I like the sound of this Ray--"next few rounds of arrests". Does this imply the long awaited turning of the tide?
DeleteI guess it depends on which arrests get made first, but if they all happen at once, it will definitely turn the tide.
DeleteFrontline did a beautiful job on the Little Rascals Case and on Janet Reno's case. The signs of community madness at penn state are glaring. In the Kellers' case, children were taken to rituals involving the murdering, dismemberment and cannibalization of babies. The children returned to the day care facility. Parents didn't notice anything when they picked up the children. At Penn State at least $60 million of harm was done tom 26 boys but nobody noticed. The boys had friends, families, teachers, doctors and other professionals working with them. The mother of victim #6 had police hiding in her house while she tried to get Sandusky to incriminate himself. I believe that the local DA saw the mother and Dr, Chambers setting up a shakedown. The 2001 incident can be explained by the fact that Paterno didn't want Second Mile kids on campus. McQueary saw a second mile kid on campus and tattled on Sandusky.
ReplyDeleteWestchester Bill: The "community madness" you speak of was masterfully stirred up by corrupt and negligent Pennsylvania state government. It was maliciously premeditated and planned with all the power that state government possesses. The state, when ready to unleash their fabricated evidence against PSU, held a third world style television press conference with Curley and Schultz's photographs staged next to the convicted pedophile Sandusky.
DeleteAny thinking person can see through the extreme abuse of power that the state of Pennsylvania unleashed on innocent citizens to create this "PSU" scandal. To me, the Sandusky scandal is the most egregious abuse of governmental power against the people to come along in quite a while. It's a fascist-style kangaroo court televised to defame and slander innocent people in place of the corrupt Attorney General that now calls himself a Governor.
To see the initial ease with witch this slanderous portrayal of PSU was carried out, should concern every citizen that cares even just a little about our government abusing its power against the people.
What makes you think "the local DA saw the mother and Dr, Chambers setting up a shakedown?"
ReplyDeleteI think the mother could have easily threatened to file a lawsuit in 1998 and gotten a settlement. She had enough embarrassing evidence to ruin Sandusky's reputation even if she lost the lawsuit.
The fact that the mother let her son stay in contact with Sandusky after 1998 seems strong evidence that the mother accepted the decision of the DA and DPW that it was not a crime.
The mother didn't have the means to file a lawsuit and it would have been her son's word against a pillar of the community. I doubt that any lawyers would have taken the case on a contingency.
DeleteI think the mother believed it was a crime or bordering on a crime, based on her discussions with Dr. Chambers. Her son could see Jerry on the condition he wasn't alone with him and there would be no more workouts.
Ray... I wanna know do u think Curley, Shultz and Spaniard will be found innocent and if so, why are they still bound for trial THIS LONG ????????
ReplyDelete