Wednesday, October 19



by Barry Bozeman

This week's Big Game is Mike McQueary vs Penn State for alleged defamation resulting in a lack of coaching job offers. Did Penn State harm McQueary's chances in the wake of the Nov 2011 indictments against former PSU coach Sandusky, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and VP Gary Schultz?

Today is the 3rd day of testimony and witnesses have offered explanations for McQueary's lack of job opportunities. PSU's defense claims McQueary's inaction when he claims to have seen or heard something between Jerry Sandusky and a boy of 10 in a locker room turned off the potential customers for his services. 

Either McQueary witnessed a sexual assault and failed to do anything about it, or he was confused about what he heard and "visualized" it as a sexual assault. Either way, his actions or inaction has been the cause of his lack of offers according to some.

McQueary blames this statement from Graham Spanier for his inability to land a job 
But there have been reports of something other than the 2001 Sandusky situation and the 2011 fallout from the November ambush that have been raised by ESPN and other media outlets.

3/04/14 Don Van Natta Jr.
 "At Penn State, buddies dubbed him Mr. State College because he projected a squeaky-clean image. But some who knew him then insist it was a facade. "He always kept up this appearance of the star quarterback, the model guy," says a close friend from those days. "But he was far from it." 
According to several of his classmates and teammates, McQueary developed a compulsive gambling habit at Penn State. He bet and lost thousands of dollars on poker and sports wagering, mostly on pro football, though he also bet, several of his former teammates say, on Nittany Lions games. One former teammate specifically recalls that Big Red bet and lost on his own team in a November 1996 game against Michigan State at Beaver Stadium. With McQueary serving as a backup on the sideline, favorite PSU won on a late field goal 32-29 but didn't cover the eight-point spread. 
As his losses mounted, McQueary owed thousands of dollars to a bookie, a debt that was eventually erased by his father, several people say. A college friend recalls urging McQueary to slow down. "It got pretty bad," the friend says, "and it just kept snowballing and snowballing. He was very impulsive." 
Whether Paterno or his assistants were aware of McQueary's gambling isn't known, but several teammates and former coaches say they doubt it. By all accounts, McQueary was fooling fans across Happy Valley -- and pulling the wool over on Paterno. "I love Joe to death," says a woman who worked for years in the football office. "But in a lot of ways, he was clueless."
Shortly after this ESPN report Deadspin joined in with this on 03/05/14
"In 1995, Mike McQueary threw a touchdown late in garbage time of a Penn State blowout over Rutgers. Then-Rutgers coach Doug Graber and Joe Paterno got into a shouting match after the game because Graber thought Paterno was running up the score. The touchdown put the 20-point-favorite Nittany Lions up 59-34. None of this is interesting at all but for a tiny anecdote about McQueary's gambling habit while enrolled at Penn State, buried in ESPN's profile on the Penn State whistleblower.
 Any late score can seem like more than a coincidence when it takes money out of your pocket, and sports betting is full of conspiracy theorists, but this is at least interesting. A Penn State alum, who was there during McQueary's playing days, told that he recalled hearing rumors about McQueary's gambling, but never believed them. Then he read Van Natta, Jr.'s story and remembered the Rutgers game.
 It sounds good, but that's how these things work. There's never a smoking gun—the absence of which you can use as proof that nothing is rigged or proof that everything is rigged really well—and always another explanation, but this is more than your typical crazy-play-allows-team-to-cover-late story. This is a guy with an alleged gambling problem—including betting on his own team—coming in for mop-up duty and immediately covering the spread with a 42-yard touchdown pass in a game that was over."
It "doesn't take a Rocket Scientist" as Mike McQueary said to his father and Dr. Dranov that night in Feb 2001 to figure out that rumors this specific are completely deadly to anyone on a coaching job search. No university is going to offer a person accused of betting on his own school's games with much less evidence than is available on ESPN and Deadspin.

And to top it off even THE NEW YORK TIMES got into the act: 

McQueary's 42-yard touchdown pass to Chris Campbell, 58 seconds from the end of Penn State's bizarre 59-34 victory over Rutgers at Giants Stadium, led to an angry exchange between Doug Graber, the Rutgers coach, and Penn State's Joe Paterno. 
Suddenly, Penn State's 20th consecutive victory, and the types of defensive lapses that could eventually derail a second straight trip to the Rose Bowl, were overshadowed by a quarrelsome handshake. Paterno had to be restrained from pursuing Graber after the Rutgers coach made a parting remark. 
Afterward, Graber chose not to talk about the margin of victory -- which didn't exceed the Las Vegas point spread of 19 1/2 to 20 points until the final score -- or the controversial touchdown, and his players followed his lead. Paterno explained that the last pass was to go to the tight end and was not designed to produce a score. "Doug was upset, and he has a right to be," Paterno said.
 When ESPN and Deadspin have stories like this from the Winter of 2014 over 30 months ago and just two years after McQueary was not hired by Paterno replacement Bill O'Brien, it's not that difficult to comprehend why job offers were not flooding into his inbox. If these stories surfaced in early 2014 it's quite likely that rumors of these events were surfacing long before, since that NYT piece on the Rutger's game was from Sept. 1995.

When doing a coaching search it's certain that the 'grapevine' for input is heavy with fruit. These coaches interact with 100's of players and other coaches. As big as NCAA football is the aspect of fraternity and community is exceptionally strong. Teammates have special bonds and little can be hidden in such a glass fishbowl.

The only question, one might ask, is why the PSU defense has not yet played these reports as part of their defense. But we are only in the first quarter and there is a long way to go in a trial estimated to go on for 2 weeks. I look for the long ball of betting to come when the defense wants a maximum effect for their winning score in the second half. Once PSU is in the RedZone the odds are 5 to 1 we will see this play develop and 10 to 1 it will win the game for the Nittany Lion defense. Any takers? Mike? 


  1. Thought provoking. I wish MM nothing but pain, heartache- evrthing his actions (or lack of ) brought the Paterno family. May you rot Mike.

    1. Not nice. Not nice at all. MM was an expendable Fina pawn. His flaws were expertly exploited by the miscreants in the OAG to accomplish their goal of taking down Spanier and Paterno. There was absolutely no other reason for them to use MM except to prejudice the case with the fraudulent presentment and transfer blame from the Corbett cabal to PSU.

      I also note that VanNatta had the Penis Posting goodies on Mike, but ESPN failed to publish that. I wonder why!

    2. Greg,
      I agree, I don't think Mike is deserving of "rotting in hell". He is one of many people involved in this mess that were intimidated and exploited by the Tom Corbett PA Mafia OAG.

      The rot-in-hell candidate is Tom Corbett. He brought in and whole-heartedly endorsed Louis Freeh as the "right choice" to lie to the public. Tom Corbett and Louis Freeh together have committed a treasonous and unforgivable act of terrorism on the entire state of PA. The amount of money their lies have unnecessarily cost the taxpayers in this state is astronomical. Not to mention the damage done to those innocent parties Freeh and Corbett falsely accused on national television.

      Louis Freeh and Tom Corbett are treasonous career criminals that most certainly deserve prison time for their willful damage done to the Commonwealth and its flagship university. In earlier times, these two would have passed through a trap door in the gallows.

    3. So how do you guys - Truthseeker, Gregory - think the trial is going from what you read? Seems to me the MM case is pretty weak.

    4. MM has the burden to prove that the primary reason for his termination was that he "blew the whistle". That is established law. He cannot do that. BOB wanted his own staff, and no asst. coach has any expectation of having their contract renewed.

      He did not blow any whistle. The incident was reported to SM, and all the executive board members knew, including Corbett fundraiser Bob Poole. Relating the story to family and friends and putting it on a message board probably resulted in hundreds of people knowing. My money says Poole told Corbett.

      Shultz consulted Dr. Dranov later about the course of action they took, and Dranov thought it was appropriate. I think Dranov is a urologist and several of the players in this fiasco were his patients or had business dealings with him. Mike's father was the business manager of the clinic (I think). Being that they could lose their license to practice medicine for failure to report abuse, they had to have taken it seriously.

      I was surprised that Escbach was not taken to the cleaners by PSU counsel. That would put the monkey on the back of the OAG and label them as the liars they are.

    5. Something doesn't sit right with me about Baldwin's story of death threats against Mike McQueary. So he gets to go on paid leave because some kook threatened him? Are these threats documented? How many were there? How many individuals made separate threats? Where are the police reports of the threats? Were the source of the threats even investigated? Or are we just supposed to accept Baldwin's story as factual? I think the threats are a ruse or exaggeration designed to get McQueary out of the mix where he could have easily opened his mouth and publicly disputed the anal rape lie from Linda Kelly. Frank Fina likely frightened McQueary into staying home and staying quiet. Again, probably using some grand jury secrecy bullshit as the tool to keep McQueary quiet while the Corbett OAG made the shower incident into rape. Also, saying McQueary was threatened with his life makes it look like PSU people and/or Paterno people were doing the threatening. The death threat story/exaggeration would be just enough innuendo given to the public to make it look like McQueary had the "smoking gun" testimony that would "prove" JoePa to be the co-founder and president of Sandusky's Second Mile boy factory. I think even the people that were initially fooled by Tom Corbett know better by now.

      I guess Baldwin still thinks Tom Corbett is the Governor!

    6. Let's see, former PSP Commissioner, Frank Noonan should be able to provide the court with his files on the source of the McQueary death threat e-mails. Maybe Linda Kelly took the death threats seriously, and appointed a special federal investigation team to track the e-mails to their source. Just like tracking Ray Gricar's murderer with a federal team of investigators. It's something the Corbett and Kelly OAG would pursue as a matter of protocol, right? Whoops, maybe the e-mail origins would implicate someone from their own office?

    7. Truthseeker - I don't think you can automatically assume threats against McQueary all came from Penn State fans. There was widespread outrage that an adult would believe he witnessed a boy being raped but said nothing to the boy, left the boy alone with the rapist and never called the police.

      You would have expected an investigation of these threats by Penn State police and the Attorney General's office. Given the ineptitude both showed in their investigations of Sandusky, their failure to investigate death threats is understandable.

    8. Even if there were no actual "death threats" I believe the admin thought MM's presence would be a distracting influence. He could easily have become the focal point of some harassment by some fans who were drinking. No need to take the chance. Best to try to keep the whole thing out of sight and out of mind - is what I would guess they were thinking.

    9. I think Penn State saved McQueary from a lot more bad publicity by putting him on administrative leave. If he had been coaching, the camera would have been on him and his failures in the Sandusky scandal rehashed every game. There would have been protests, insulting signs, boos and items thrown at him.

      Savannah State administrators revoked his job offer because they didn't want McQueary to overshadow the head coach and team. It would have been like that even more had he continued to coach at Penn State because the Sandusky scandal was fresher.

  2. Barry,

    I agree that the case as I've read about it on seems weak for MM. Based on their past history in this whole mess I'm still surprised Penn State didn't just say they had harmed poor little Mikey and paid him his requested $5 mil, plus another 5 for all his troubles!

    1. It seems like most of McQueary's witnesses are backfiring for him.

      Testimony revealed that O'Brien wanted to replace all the assistants but kept two at the request of a group of players. A witness also testified that, contrary to his claim, McQueary was not the only assistant not to get an interview with O'Brien.

      The witnesses also made a good case that McQueary was put on administrative leave for his own safety after numerous threats.

      It wouldn't surprise me if Penn State calls coaches who got job applications from McQueary and asks them why they didn't hire him. Their answers could kill McQueary's case.

    2. It is somewhat surprising that someone in control of PSU legal representation finally grew some stones and decided to fight this one. Maybe the tide is turning with the newer BOT members?
      It also seems clear that MM's case is exceptionally winnable and actually seems to hold little risk of exposing the incredible Breach of Fiduciary Duty by BOT members - I suspect the hardliners who were Corbett's core support have noticed the efficacy of Spanier's defamation lawsuit and see a significant challenge to the Freeh narrative. Further Breach of Fiduciary responsibility would be more likely to cause repercussions?

  3. Today Dr. Dranov testified that what MM saw did not warrant a call to police. He recommended a report to JVP. He is a mandated reporter. If MM couldn't tell him enough to warrant a call to police then what could he have said the following day to convince a football coach, who is conditioned to handle problems related to young men in their later teens and twenties, that a sexual assault of a young boy may have occurred?

    1. I was surprised McQueary called Dranov because he mastly contradicted McQueary. I guess McQueary called him because he knew the defense would if he didn't.

      I suspect McQueary was hoping for a settlement and is just going through the motions with a weak case hoping that the jury takes pity on him.

    2. Perhaps Dranov's status as a mandated reporter has been overstated. One accepted interpretation is that Doctors who are primary care-givers or who see a child in the capacity as physician are required to report suspected abuse. That likely does not apply to Doctors who are not involved in the care for a child. I think that Dranov wanted to go with MM to the police but MM wasn't keen on that idea since his experience was 'visualized" imagination more than any actual observation. Was the visit to Joe partially recommended by his Dad due to MM's desire for a coaching position? He was just a grad assistant at the time so a one on one visit to Joe for a heads up on this would be seen as a positive career move?
      Joe was no longer involved with JS as employer and perhaps the players / coaches post 1999 knew Joe was not a fan of JS?

    3. As I recall Dranov testified that he was a mandated reporter. But that's beside the point. MM couldn't tell Dranov what he saw. He didn't have the stones to make sure the kid was ok, or maybe he knew the kid was ok and was just creeped out by his visualization. If he had concern for the boy then he should have intervened, found out what was going on, let him get dressed and either called the cops or accompanied him home. Since he was too cowardly to do that then he should have made it clear to everyone he talked to that he wanted the police involved. He didn't. He was vague and nondescript enough to make everyone he told think that what went on was horseplay not deserving of investigation. He should be ashamed of himself.

    4. I agree completely his status as mandated made no difference to what he was told by MM. I wonder if MM was threatened by Fina or some OAG operative that his Dad or Dranov might be charged it MM didn't do as he was told.

    5. The mandated reporter law is very vague. Curley, Schultz and Spanier didn't seem to be covered by the 2001 law but were charged anyway. Dranov certainly was a mandated reporter in 2001 so could easily have been charged.

      I think prosecutors didn't charge Dranov and Mike's father because they wanted the focus on Penn State. They also didn't want to risk Mike changing his story to save his father.

      Penn State should definitely ask Mike if he had any discussions about immunity for himself, his father and Dranov.

      Victim 1's two high school officials were clearly mandated reporters and failed to report based on their own testimony. Again, they weren't charged because they weren't from Penn State.

    6. It actually took Aaron Fisher 2 years to claim abuse, and that was a scripted statement read by his therapist. In his first interview with police, he said nothing happened. He was in a sexual relationship with a classmate(and the female's parents had to get a restraining order against Aaron). He was addicted to porn. He masturbated in front of his best friend during sleepovers. It took his therapist two years to make him think he was a victim. Same therapist that Alan Myers was sent to by Shubin. Quack, Quack. At trial, he said he got 100 blow jobs from JS. Do tell! I bet that the Mountain High folks have a great story to tell, but are being repressed from doing so.

  4. Any way you look at this McQ comes out smelling like a turd in a hog pen. This is his hail Mary, nothing more. He knows he will end up working as a floor sweeper in a taco factory. He has to win this to preserve his future.

    1. What about Tom Corbett's future? I mean, when he gets out of prison. I don't think it's unrealistic to say one day we'll be able to go see "The former Governor of Pennsylvania" sitting on the front stoop of a burned out and boarded up storefront in Shamokin. There he'll sit, shirtless, dark red sunburned skin, drinking a Blatz. His tattered cardboard sign reads, "Shake the hand of the former Governor $5.00---Bite the head off of your live chicken, $10.00----Photograph with Governor $15.00".

    2. Live chicken or dead pigeon? LOL - I like the image

    3. How about an armadillo? The chicken crossed the road to show the armadillo it could be done. Corbett is roadkill.

      I still cannot understand why no one has asked MM why he associated slapping sounds with sex. Most jocks would think of snapping towels and wet, flying balls like we did as kids in the showers (and if the coaches were not around, we would soap up the floor and surf!) What kind of slap happy sex was MM into??