Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 12, 2011

Posnanski: The Real Albert Pujols

I have, on occasion, been allowed past the moat and drawbridge and into Albert Pujols’ world. In those circumstances, I have found him to be a likable guy — determined, focused, self-effacing, respectful of the past, loyal to his friends, energized by faith and some of the good things that his fame and money have allowed him to do. I have also, on occasion, been frozen out like just about everybody else. In those circumstances I have found him to be difficult, cold, defensive, overly sensitive, angry, surprisingly eager to believe the worst about people.

It’s tempting to say that one or the other is the “real” Albert Pujols, but I don’t think it’s ever that easy….

CFBF's Results are Certified Posted: December 12, 2011 at 10:56 PM | 159 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: angels, cardinals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 13, 2011 at 12:39 AM (#4014572)
People with the attributes Posnanski describes are quite common. I'm one of them, for example. That's because the former series of attributes tends to lead to the latter series of attributes--it's easier to get hurt and let down if you want to like people and want them to like you. It's important to not let the latter series drown out the former series, because real good can be done.
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 13, 2011 at 02:10 AM (#4014675)
Sounds just like Bill James too.
   3. I Am Not a Number Posted: December 13, 2011 at 03:30 AM (#4014745)
Finally, a sober portrayal of Pujols who, like most of us, has positive and negative attributes, any of which someone might witness on any given day. You wouldn't expect any less from Posnanski, of course.
   4. Gaelan Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:34 AM (#4014774)
Are we still linking to Posnanski? I thought we banned him. Well I know I'm not going to read. Doesn't he have an eulogy to write or something?
   5. base ball chick Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:45 AM (#4014777)
why have we banned joe posnanski?
   6. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:49 AM (#4014778)
why have we banned joe posnanski?


We haven't. Gaelan's referring to Joe Poz' reaction to Joe Pa's inaction as the reason we should.
   7. Lassus Posted: December 13, 2011 at 06:07 AM (#4014809)
Banning is ridiculous, since we've banned nearly no one.

Gaelan's reaction - while logistically nonsensical - is not unintelligible, however. Poz has permanently lost a number of notches permanently as far as I'm concerned, at least.
   8. sptaylor Posted: December 13, 2011 at 06:39 AM (#4014817)
If we're anti-Posnanski, then shouldn't we also be anti-Bill James, too?
   9. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: December 13, 2011 at 06:42 AM (#4014819)
"In light of the continuing Penn State scandal, perhaps it would now be appropriate for me to share my thoughts on Albert Pujols." - Joe Poz
   10. Gaelan Posted: December 13, 2011 at 06:47 AM (#4014821)
Yeah, I wasn't serious about banning. Shunning would be more appropriate.
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: December 13, 2011 at 07:20 AM (#4014826)
If this isn't a reason for banning/shunning, I don't know what is:

"I have been watching some Twilight Zone episodes lately… I had never actually watched The Twilight Zone before, but a good friend of mine is a fan bordering on fanatic, and she has recommended some episodes for me to watch."

Really?
A writer who hits 40+ in 2011 and hasn't seen that show before?

I assume burning at the stake dates me as an alternative....
   12. Zac Schmitt Posted: December 13, 2011 at 07:47 AM (#4014831)
Gaelan's referring to Joe Poz' reaction to Joe Pa's inaction as the reason we should.


I read him pretty regularly and the only thing i can really remember him saying one way or the other was that he was basically reserving judgement until later, which doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Did I miss something?
   13. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: December 13, 2011 at 08:35 AM (#4014836)
Poz basically excoriated the media for rushing to judgement, especially in the case of Paterno. There were a couple of problems people had with that view. First, the Grand Jury report is the definition of damning for Paterno. You don't even have to ascribe cynical motives to the coach to be really angry with him. Second, Poz' reaction seemed definitely influenced by his closeness to Paterno, the subject of the book he was writing. That didn't go over well with people here.
   14. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: December 13, 2011 at 09:35 AM (#4014838)
I too, have never watched The Twilight Zone.
   15. valuearbitrageur Posted: December 13, 2011 at 09:43 AM (#4014839)
How dare Poz reserve judgement!
   16. OsunaSakata Posted: December 13, 2011 at 10:09 AM (#4014842)
I'm getting sick of Posnanski's nuanced depictions of sports figures as complicated people. We demand cardboard characterizations as either heroes or villains!
   17. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: December 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM (#4014847)
You know who else wanted to ban Poz?? Hitler!
   18. Lassus Posted: December 13, 2011 at 12:56 PM (#4014857)
I am apparently permanently redundant.
   19. WhoWantsTeixeiraDessert Posted: December 13, 2011 at 01:23 PM (#4014871)
He's still the same writer you enjoyed once. If you start applying f'd up litmus tests to all these guys, you're gonna be left with no stories worth reading at all.
   20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 13, 2011 at 01:34 PM (#4014876)
He's still the same writer you enjoyed once. If you start applying f'd up litmus tests to all these guys, you're gonna be left with no stories worth reading at all.

Not to mention many of the great writers in history weren't particularly attractive individuals. Are you going to cut yourself off from all that genius just b/c the author may have been a bad person?
   21. Lest we forget Posted: December 13, 2011 at 01:35 PM (#4014878)
Yeah, but we'll always have Chass.
   22. bunyon Posted: December 13, 2011 at 02:14 PM (#4014910)
IMO, he hasn't written anything that was beyond the pale. His comments to the class were, I think, repugnant. He really should have just kept his mouth shut because he was too close, and too financially involved, with Paterno to be an objective journalist in the situation.

I also think what makes Poz great is what got him in trouble in the Paterno affair. He is really good, as a poster above implies, at taking two dimensional myths and showing the complex person. That is great for a situation like Pujols where the "terrible" thing he has done is change employers. Or even Bonds where the terrilbe thing was cheating and using drugs that do harm to himself. In those cases, you can show the other side, the side of good and love that almost everyone has and make the point that, yeah, okay, these guys f'ed up and are, in many ways, not very likeable characters, but you only know some of the story. They're also great guys in many ways that show the best of humanity. You get a neater, deeper story and you feel good even if your basic opinion doesn't change.

But that approach doesn't work at all in a case involving child molestation. There is no amount of complexity and depth that can make you think, okay, so he looked the other way while his friend diddled little kids. But, look at all the good he's done!

It doesn't just not work, it actually makes it worse. Worse that an apparently good guy could be so bad and worse that an apparently good judge of character could get it so wrong.


So, yeah, his initial handling of the Paterno/Sandusky affair has colored my view of Poznanski quite a bit. But I do think he's right that reserving judgement is usually a good thing and, in this case, I'll be interested to see where Poz ends up on the issue (or, put another way, where I end up). I can see a number of outcomes in terms of my readership of Poz: 1) continue reading but with a more jaundiced eye (where I am now), 2) continue reading and see that Poz comes around on the issue after getting over initial shock/loss and 3) end up not a reader at all (likely to happen if he continues to defend Paterno as strongly as he has or if it were revealed that he actually knew about Sandusky and planned to write a positive bio of Paterno anyway (something I think is possible).

For now, he's still a hell of a writer in my opinion and I mostly enjoy his approach, which I think works really well in the case of Pujols. I'm also naturally sympathetic to the idea that most people are not good or bad but are who they are and do good and bad things.
   23. TomH Posted: December 13, 2011 at 02:40 PM (#4014935)
agree w/ 22.
those who toss around terms like shunning and banning... hmmm, if I was your friend, would I be written off the first time I opined something inappropriate? I'm for a lot more grace.
   24. Jay Seaver Posted: December 13, 2011 at 03:29 PM (#4015001)
A writer who hits 40+ in 2011 and hasn't seen [The Twilight Zone] before?

40+ still puts you born at least five years after the original went off the air. As much as I like science fiction and watched the later iterations, it just wasn't generally available for me when I was growing up, and it's a daunting (and expensive) set of DVDs/BDs.
   25. rr Posted: December 13, 2011 at 03:53 PM (#4015038)
I agree with 22 as well, and it reflects my .02 that I put in about Poz/Paterno in the NCAAF thread.

There are good reasons that "Well, it's not like (guy who tested positive for PEDs/guy who was a dick in the media/guy who didn't run out a hit to the gap etc.) is a child molester" is a meme, and there are good reasons why "Won't someone think of the children" is a meme as well.

The Penn State case is that relatively rare sports scandal in which someone DID need to think of the children, and apparently no one with power at PSU did so.

I would add, though, that in showing multi-dimensional people, Posnanski tends to look for the good in them. He said specifically in his book about the 1975 Reds that one of his goals was to show the modern fan the good side of Pete Rose.

In most situations, I think that is a positive for Poz. In the Penn State situation, given his connection to it, it wasn't and isn't.
   26. WhoWantsTeixeiraDessert Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:38 PM (#4015107)
I didn't go on that long thread, so I'm redundant too. But I still think ignoring him as a writer is the wrong move. Poz wrote about it just a little, and is no way involved in this crime or misrepresenting it. He may write some more about Paterno's role in this eventually, and make it all the more poignant with his craft, at worst, as a "fall from grace" or "how little we know about our heroes" or some other article with a different point of view about Paterno given his access for the book project. Instead, most people just wanted him to excoriate everyone immediately, and be like a hundred other lesser writers who can't try to find a different point of view, or try to see if any good can come of this disgusting crime and enabling conspiracy, to try to change the university structures that allow molestation to be systematically ignored by the proper authorities. It was probably fruitless to even to wonder instead of joining the madding crowd after the first couple of days of vitriol. But then again, how many angry rants are necessary? Yelling "Monster!" and killing it, makes you feel safe until the next monster shows up, and no one is finding out why there are so many monsters around all of the sudden that seemed to be normal people.
   27. bunyon Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:44 PM (#4015117)
@26: Poz excoriated plenty of people...for criticizing Paterno. His rant in the class was really pretty astounding.
   28. Grunthos Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:52 PM (#4015134)
Ditto here. I will point out that this:

"But that approach doesn't work at all in a case involving child molestation. There is no amount of complexity and depth that can make you think, okay, so he looked the other way while his friend diddled little kids. But, look at all the good he's done!"

isn't true here. It's true in the strawman form presented, but that isn't what Poz said. I can see why people read Poz as saying that; when you're focused on being outraged about the outrageous, there's no space for holding more than one truth in your head. But the truth is, Paterno has done a hell of a lot of good for a lot of people in his life. The truth also is, Paterno did a hell of a lot of intense bad for some (as yet undetermined, but distressingly large) number of people by waving his hands at this. Both things are true at the same time. Claiming that Posnanski is a bad writer, or out of line, for pointing this out seems silly to me. But hey, you want to see that as Poz being hopelessly biased and therefore on the side of evil, it's your choice.
   29. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:53 PM (#4015136)
As much as I like science fiction and watched the later iterations, it just wasn't generally available for me when I was growing up, and it's a daunting (and expensive) set of DVDs/BDs.


Most of the original series is on Netflix streaming. Between that and some judicious loans from the public library, I recently watched the entirety of the series at very little cost. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that you do that, but there are an awful lot of really good episodes.
   30. Grunthos Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:53 PM (#4015140)
And @27... you know, no, it wasn't. I suppose many will have to disagree on that point. *shrugs*
   31. Gaelan Posted: December 13, 2011 at 04:59 PM (#4015150)
Poz did a lot more than reserve judgement. Reserving judgement would have been cowardly and inappropriate but ultimately forgettable. Instead he went into a full blow defense of Paterno mode. Not only his comments to the class at Penn State but then in the SI piece he wrote afterwards. He didn't make a single substantive or thoughtful statement nor did he Not once did he add nuance to the discussion. Instead he played the pandering sycophant.

It would be one thing if he (Posnanski) had behaved in the way people want to believe he behaved. But he didn't.

So, I'm with Bunyon, just two steps beyond.
   32. Nasty Nate Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:11 PM (#4015184)
What did Poz say to this class?
   33. Gaelan Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:12 PM (#4015186)
Grunthos, you are simply completely and totally wrong about this.

It does bring up an interesting meta question. what leads some people like Posnanski and Grunthos to be so wrong? It isn't a failure of reason because the interpretation of the event is something that happens prior to reason?

I think that it is a question of moral character. This is why our political and moral debates are not amenable to rational discussion. Our interpretation of events occurs prior to our reasoning about those events on the basis of implicit and unselfconscious moral views.

So in the case of Posnanski, he sees himself as a moral defender of the little guy against the persecution of the mob. This vision is part of his self-image prior to the scandal erupting. He then views the scandal in terms of his moral understanding of the universe and plays the role he has assigned for himself.

In the case of Grunthos (and I'm just making stuff up here as a thought experiment, this isn't an insult) he sees himself as an impartial and distant fair minded observer of events. In reading Posnanski in these terms he distances himself from the existential reality of the events and tries to give Posnanksi every benefit of the doubt because that is what a fair minded person does.

In my case (to go really meta) I see the world as a battleground between order and disorder in which it is the duty of the courageous to stand for what is right. This stance could side with Paterno or against him (or with Posnanksi or against him) but it must take a side and make no compromises. What matters here is two things 1) which side strikes first and gets the spirit of justice on its side and 2) the intellectual act to clarify truth from falsehood. So a person like me is going to be highly influenced by how the debate is set up but should focus on the intellectual act of clarity to avoid being overcome by excessive spirit. Without spirit there can be no justice, but spirit untamed can lead to the greatest injustice.
   34. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:17 PM (#4015197)
In my case (to go really meta) I see the world as a battleground between order and disorder in which it is the duty of the courageous to stand for what is right. This stance could side with Paterno or against him (or with Posnanksi or against him) but it must take a side and make no compromises. What matters here is two things 1) which side strikes first and gets the spirit of justice on its side and 2) the intellectual act to clarify truth from falsehood. So a person like me is going to be highly influenced by how the debate is set up but should focus on the intellectual act of clarity to avoid being overcome by excessive spirit. Without spirit there can be no justice, but spirit untamed can lead to the greatest injustice.


I have never seen someone on this site state something that was so bizarre it made me think that they are unhinged.

Until now.
   35. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#4015208)
I have never seen someone on this site state something that was so bizarre it made me think that they are unhinged.

Until now.


Have you never read Gaelan's posts before?
   36. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:21 PM (#4015211)
Have you never read Gaelan's posts before?


I mostly skip his walls of text. The rest I read is still within the realm of reasonable, unless I want to say that 60% of people are crazy.
   37. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:24 PM (#4015214)
So in the case of Posnanski, he sees himself as a moral defender of the little guy against the persecution of the mob. This vision is part of his self-image prior to the scandal erupting. He then views the scandal in terms of his moral understanding of the universe and plays the role he has assigned for himself.


People might think Gaelan is unhinged but this is a perfect analysis of Posnanski's reaction. It's actually generous in a way.
   38. Greg K Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:29 PM (#4015225)
Maybe it's just my intellectual and moral weakness, but I find people who refuse to make compromises somehow less trustworthy.

EDIT: second on Galean's description of Poz as seeming quite accurate to me.
   39. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:38 PM (#4015250)
Maybe it's just my intellectual and moral weakness, but I find people who refuse to make compromises somehow less trustworthy.

Gaelan is working from a POV of the ideal. In real life, everyone makes compromises every day or you wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning.

As for Pos, I do think he was too close to Paterno and the cult that has built up around him over decades. He clearly wasn't working on an even-keeled piece on Paterno but on a hagiography and was blind-sided by this after interviewing dozens of people who had nothing but great things to say about Joe Paterno. I wonder if Pos had interviewed Sandusky for his book? It makes sense that he would, as Sandusky is so closely associated with Paterno and Paterno had been involved in Sandusky's charity. Anyway, It will be interesting to see how Pos handles the story from this point forward as more and more victims come forward and the details that will emerge if the case goes to trial. I wonder if Pos will cover the story at all, though.

edit: Bill James was disappointing, too, in the days after the Grand Jury testimony was released. I have more hope for Pos than James going forward, though, as James has seemed more and more like a crank to me the last few years.
   40. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:50 PM (#4015269)
Gaelan is a treasure. Almost as good as km.

Anyways, I can usually get behind a reserve judgement and wait for the facts stance. But a) as noted above, Posnanski went way beyond that. And b) even with the facts at hand, there was simply no coming back to the right side, no matter what else was revealed. Reserving judgement is right and justifiable only up and to the point where revelation of new facts can still make a difference.
Even if we ONLY take Paterno's own statement towards the GJ, then his actions are already heinously despicable. There is simply no digging your way out of that hole. And at that point, reserving judgement becomes a moral failure.
   41. Zach Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:53 PM (#4015277)
Does Pujols really have that great a work ethic? I'm sure it's good and all, but it's not like you hear hushed whispers about the demon in St. Louis. He's talented, hardworking and driven, but I don't see where Posnanski is getting the "driven to be the best that ever was" thing.

When you think about it, it would be a little surprising, even a little disappointing, if Pujols got where he did just by working harder than anybody else. Kind of like Todd Marinovich, if things had gone better. It would take some of the mystery out of the world.
   42. SoSH U at work Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:56 PM (#4015282)
Even if we ONLY take Paterno's own statement towards the GJ, then his actions are already heinously despicable. There is simply no digging your way out of that hole. And at that point, reserving judgement becomes a moral failure.


Exactly. I don't have a problem with reserving judgment on Sandusky, under an innocent until proven guilty rationale. But there is no defense for Paterno's inaction. He was informed (and admitted as much) that child rape was taking place, and he did nothing about it. Sometimes, there's just one side, and this was one of them.
   43. base ball chick Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:57 PM (#4015284)
OsunaSakata Posted: December 13, 2011 at 05:09 AM (#4014842)

I'm getting sick of Posnanski's nuanced depictions of sports figures as complicated people. We demand cardboard characterizations as either heroes or villains!


- THIS!!!

also, it is true that joe pos was certainly affected by his relationship to joe pa, money or no money. for 18 months all hea had heard was how joe pa is this mother teresa like saint - then suddenly, this monstrous accusation that he had committed an unforgiveable (by all but God) moral sin.

he certainly IS right to be angry with the fact that most people really DO believe that accused = guilty and that most people don't wait to hear the whole story before making a permanent, often incorrect and unfair judgement.

but i am going to give poe pos a chance. it certainly looks more and more as if sandusky WAS a child rapist and that this was covered up in the Name Of The Sacred Football Program. i don't think that pos is the kind of guy who would let that slide.
   44. Gaelan Posted: December 13, 2011 at 06:09 PM (#4015298)
Gaelan is working from a POV of the ideal. In real life, everyone makes compromises every day or you wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning.


Right. In real life I am very pragmatic. It is what allows my avatar to be uncompromising. Does this make me more unhinged or less? My posts here are that of a character I've created who is nonetheless me. Now, this is true of all writing from literature to BTF musings.

In terms of the craziness aspect. I actually think that there is something about consciousness that is essentially divorced from reality, so in that sense we are all born crazy (why do you think babies and toddlers cry so much--it's because they live in a world that makes no sense and has no place for them--i.e. they are born crazy). The question is how do we reconstitute ourselves in order to remain integral personalities (i.e. sane). Most people do this by assimilating their personality into the body public in which they live so that the I-say and the they-say coincide. But for others,this assimilation is not so easy.
   45. . . . . . . Posted: December 13, 2011 at 08:04 PM (#4015475)
I agree strongly with 22 - and the going-foward problem with what Poz wrote/said in the wake of Penn State is that I read this and think, "or maybe Pujols is just an #######, and Poz simply can't bring himself to admit it.". Once at least one hagiography is revealed to be constructed in part on Poz's rationalizations, how do we know he hasn't elided over ugliness elsewhere? Most people have a "good side", but not everyone is good.
   46. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: December 13, 2011 at 08:24 PM (#4015498)
Most people have a "good side", but not everyone is good.

You know who else had a good side?? Hitler!!
   47. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: December 13, 2011 at 08:38 PM (#4015521)
Sandusky's lawyer said today that if you believe the charges against him you should dial 1-800-REALITY. I DARE you to actually dial 1-800-REALITY.
   48. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 13, 2011 at 09:01 PM (#4015555)
Sandusky's lawyer said today that if you believe the charges against him you should dial 1-800-REALITY.

I can't decide if he's deliberately ####### up his client's case to get a mistrial later, or he's simply a raging moron.
   49. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 13, 2011 at 09:13 PM (#4015573)
Anyways, I can usually get behind a reserve judgement and wait for the facts stance. But a) as noted above, Posnanski went way beyond that. And b) even with the facts at hand, there was simply no coming back to the right side, no matter what else was revealed. Reserving judgement is right and justifiable only up and to the point where revelation of new facts can still make a difference.
When OJ finds the real killers, you're going to feel like a schmuck.
   50. rr Posted: December 13, 2011 at 11:32 PM (#4015776)
No, what makes no sense is Amendola asking folks to call a gay sex line in an attempt to clear his client's name. Yeah, "1-800-REALITY" is a gay sex line. We know. We called. We heard, "Hey guys, welcome to the hottest place for triple-X action" and we hung up.


http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Jerry-Sandusky-8217-s-lawyer-suggests-calling-a?urn=ncaaf-wp11446
   51. Zac Schmitt Posted: December 13, 2011 at 11:58 PM (#4015791)

Exactly. I don't have a problem with reserving judgment on Sandusky, under an innocent until proven guilty rationale. But there is no defense for Paterno's inaction. He was informed (and admitted as much) that child rape was taking place, and he did nothing about it. Sometimes, there's just one side, and this was one of them.


I don't get this: You're allowed to reserve judgment on Sanudsky because, hey, it might not have happened, but you're not allowed to reserve judgment on Paterno for not doing anything about something that...might not have happened? If Sandusky's innocent, Paterno had nothing to be "inactive" about.
   52. Tom Riddle Posted: December 14, 2011 at 12:07 AM (#4015798)
^ Paterno was still inactive because we know for certain that he was told something was going on and that he didn't react strongly enough. If someone went to you about a crime I supposedly committed, you would have an obligation to look into it further regardless of whether or not I actually did it. Obviously that's not a perfect statement but it fits here.
   53. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 14, 2011 at 12:08 AM (#4015799)
I don't get this: You're allowed to reserve judgment on Sanudsky because, hey, it might not have happened, but you're not allowed to reserve judgment on Paterno for not doing anything about something that...might not have happened? If Sandusky's innocent, Paterno had nothing to be "inactive" about.
Paterno admits he was told that it happened. That's what imposes on him the obligation to do something. If it turns out that there's an innocent (but still creepy!) explanation for Sandusky's actions, that doesn't retroactively absolve Paterno.
   54. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 14, 2011 at 12:12 AM (#4015804)
^ Paterno was still inactive because we know for certain that he was told something was going on and that he didn't react strongly enough. If someone went to you about a crime I supposedly committed, you would have an obligation to look into it further regardless of whether or not I actually did it. Obviously that's not a perfect statement but it fits here.


Yes, by his own admission, one of his underlings informed him of sexual contact with a minor taking place at the university. He did next to nothing with that information.

We don't know for certain that Jerry Sandusky raped those boys. We do know Paterno failed to act properly in response to that information.
   55. ray james Posted: December 14, 2011 at 12:16 AM (#4015809)
@26: Poz excoriated plenty of people...for criticizing Paterno. His rant in the class was really pretty astounding.


Poznanski has something of libertarian streak. It comes out when he writes about steroids and a few other things. So it doesn't surprise me that he was nonplussed when a situation came up where principles mattered and something other than a "live and let live" response was appropriate.

And let's not forget the personal interest Poznanski has in Paterno. He stands to make a lot of money if the book sells well. I don't see that happening when the story is about a pedophile enabler, which is what Paterno appears to be right now.

BTW, that article from Grantland linked above is a classic treatise in double-speak. Well done, Poz!
   56. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: December 14, 2011 at 02:52 AM (#4015909)
Sandusky's lawyer said today that if you believe the charges against him you should dial 1-800-REALITY. I DARE you to actually dial 1-800-REALITY.

No need. I'll just take some hits of my reality pipe right here.

When OJ finds the real killers, you're going to feel like a schmuck.

However will I live with myself.

Clearly he got himself put away for a minimum of about 10 years, because that's where the trail led him! And going inside was the only way to continue his investigation!
   57. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 14, 2011 at 03:23 AM (#4015926)
Joe Posnanski, explorer of nuance and see-er of sides, was not the ideal writer to be at the blast center of this revolting story just as it broke.

But which sportswriter would be preferable to stay with the story as it progresses? I can't think of one.
   58. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: December 14, 2011 at 03:49 AM (#4015943)
But which sportswriter would be preferable to stay with the story as it progresses? I can't think of one.


Personally, I'd go with Pat Jordan. That said, while I don't have much confidence in Posnanski writing a book that doesn't in some way seem like an apology for Paterno, I must admit I'm definitely going to check it out when it's released.
   59. Darren Posted: December 14, 2011 at 04:15 AM (#4015954)
I want to second the request for someone to share what Pos said to the class. Thanks.
   60. The District Attorney Posted: December 14, 2011 at 04:19 AM (#4015957)
Journalists Address PSU’s JoePa Class This Morning, Say He’s a Scapegoat

BTW, James' pay site subscribers can see from his most recent article that he has gone even more all-in on the JoePa-as-scapegoat position.
   61. Darren Posted: December 14, 2011 at 04:21 AM (#4015960)
Thanks DA!
   62. Zac Schmitt Posted: December 14, 2011 at 05:57 AM (#4016024)
Yes, by his own admission, one of his underlings informed him of sexual contact with a minor taking place at the university. He did next to nothing with that information.


Or he had good reason to believe he knew that the accusation was false. It's a little silly to assume Sandusky might be innocent, but that Paterno could never have known that to be the case.

Edit: I just clicked on the above link just now. and this quote especially...

I think he tried to do the right thing, and the right thing didn't happen.


seems a defensible position to take. The road to hell and all, but burying his head in the sand is at least a somewhat understandable, if not sympathetic, thing to do.
   63. Baldrick Posted: December 14, 2011 at 07:50 AM (#4016034)
Okay, I'll admit that I have devoted probably 1/100 of the attention to this story as many other people, but is there any actual transcript of the Poz comments to that class?

The only thing I've ever seen is the article posted by The DA which admits it may be "Some Posnanski quotes, obviously out of context and likely not transcribed precisely."

I don't really have a position here. I'm just curious if the context ever turned up?
   64. The District Attorney Posted: December 14, 2011 at 11:36 PM (#4016667)
It's not a media appearance, article or book; it's a classroom conversation. Unless it was recorded, which apparently it wasn't, I would think that live-tweeting would be as close to a "transcript" as you're gonna get.

It's hard for me to imagine any context in which "I've never seen anything handled worse. Maybe New Orleans, post-Katrina" or "If this happened at the University of Miami, no matter how bad it was, it wouldn't have elevated to this level" are statements that a sensible person would feel were worth making. I think Poz "went native" due to being inside the State College bubble. He'd write a better book if he got out of town, I strongly suspect. But we'll see.
   65. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 15, 2011 at 12:19 AM (#4016708)
Or he had good reason to believe he knew that the accusation was false. It's a little silly to assume Sandusky might be innocent, but that Paterno could never have known that to be the case.


That's not his call to make.
   66. Zac Schmitt Posted: December 15, 2011 at 09:50 PM (#4017373)
That's not his call to make.


I agree with you, but is there any actual evidence that Paterno didn't investigate the matter? I'll admit to not really following the particulars of this story, but I haven't heard anything other than rumors that it was swept under the rug - and I think the grad student's testimony says that's what happened, right? For all we know Paterno might have looked pretty deeply into the matter (unbeknownst to the grad student) and found Sandusky's story to be credible, or the grad student's story to be demonstrably false.
   67. Sunday silence: Play Guess How long season lasts Posted: December 15, 2011 at 11:20 PM (#4017432)
If someone went to you about a crime I supposedly committed, you would have an obligation to look into it further regardless of whether or not I actually did it.


That's part of the point. You really don't have an obligation to report crimes or help people in distress, at least you didn't in this country until child molesters started showing up and then some states passed these laws that you have be a good samaritan. I guess that's what paterno is accused of here, although I have not followed it in depth.

In general, good samaritan laws were never the standard in the US and England as far as I know, but they are plentiful in continental Europe. France I guess has them. You can enact all the penalties you want, make failure to report a capital crime or whatever, but underlying it all there are some assumptions about what a person should do and/or what is realistic under the circumstances that are just not, well, realistic.

For me, I am not well versed in the particulars, but I thought Paterno did report this to the A.D. (I saw something along those lines in the news, maybe I was mistaken). Then what is it that he was supposed to do? Is he supposed to follow this up? Is he supposed to make phone calls to the police to see how the investigation is going? Is he supposed to tell people not to go near Sandusky?

I am willing to keep an open mind, so please someone explain to me what Paterno was supposed to do if only so that I can more understand what is happening in happy valley.
   68. ray james Posted: December 15, 2011 at 11:52 PM (#4017448)
But which sportswriter would be preferable to stay with the story as it progresses? I can't think of one.


Poznanski is the last person I would want to continue this story, he's so morally agnostic.

I think Rick Telander, Gary Smith, Sally Jenkins and John Feinstein would all do well with this story. As Poznanski has already shown, he's too compromised.
   69. ray james Posted: December 15, 2011 at 11:54 PM (#4017449)
I agree with you, but is there any actual evidence that Paterno didn't investigate the matter?


Yes, there is. Paterno himself admitted he just kicked it upstairs and forgot about it.
   70. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 15, 2011 at 11:54 PM (#4017450)
Yes, by his own admission, one of his underlings informed him of sexual contact with a minor taking place at the university. He did next to nothing with that information.

Or he had good reason to believe he knew that the accusation was false. It's a little silly to assume Sandusky might be innocent, but that Paterno could never have known that to be the case.


This is not a defense of Paterno. Paterno is not supposed to decide whether the allegations are credible. He's simply supposed to report them.

And he did report them (the following day) one level up the chain. That likely gets him out of legal jeopardy, but I believe he had a moral obligation to (a) follow up with his superiors to make sure they reported the allegations to state authorities, and then (b) once learning that they hadn't, or not having received confirmation that they had, he should have reported the allegations to state authorities himself.
   71. Lassus Posted: December 16, 2011 at 12:04 AM (#4017453)
The road to hell and all, but burying his head in the sand is at least a somewhat understandable, if not sympathetic, thing to do.

As has been explained repeatedly here and elsewhere, it was not understandable. It was morally and ethically bankrupt and therefore an absolute wrong. Would it have been easy? Hell no. But it's a lot easier than being molested.
   72. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2011 at 12:06 AM (#4017455)
Poznanski is the last person I would want to continue this story, he's so morally agnostic.

You're getting five hundred versions of the "hang him and raze the stadium" reaction already. In this case, that's a completely reasonable response. But it's a common and simple response, and it isn't more special, powerful or revealing the 501st time. I don't expect a book of that will be value added.

If we want a "scumbag protects monster" story, I can suggest a platoon of sportswriters who would do an equally efficient job on it. But if we'd prefer an "all that is necessary for evil to triumph" account, I'll stick with Posnanski.
   73. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2011 at 12:07 AM (#4017456)
I write to journalists maybe once every year or two; not often. In the past few years I can only recall writing to Murray Chass (re Blyleven/Morris/Mussina) and TR Sullivan (re Blyleven/Morris). Perhaps there are one or two others - I don't know.

Nevertheless, I found cause to write the following two emails to Posnanski a few weeks back. (He didn't respond.)

Here's what I wrote him. Emails entitled: "On Paterno. Please make yourself stop."

Joe, your comments on Paterno are simply wrong, and uninformed, and, dare I say, lies.

And I say this as someone who had no ill feelings for Paterno last week.

1. You write:

"Beyond this two things, though, I said I wasn’t going to write about this because I feel like there’s still a lot of darkness around. I don’t know what Joe Paterno knew. I don’t know how he handled it. I don’t know if he followed up. I don’t know anything about Paterno’s role in this except for what little was said about that in the horrifying and stomach-turning grand jury findings. People have jumped to many conclusions about Paterno’s role and his negligence, and they might be right. I’ll say it again: They might be right. But they might be wrong, too. And I’m writing a book about the man. I can’t live in that world of maybes."

This is utterly wrong, and shameful for you to write. We DO know if Paterno followed up. We know, with absolute certainty, that he DID NOT follow up. We know that he did not follow up, because we know that the police were not informed by Paterno of the 2002 incident. So there is no "don't know;" there is no "might."

2. You write:

"I’m going to wait for evidence, and if it turns out that Joe Paterno knowingly covered this up, then I will write that with all the power and fury I have in me."

Once more: we know that Paterno did not report an incident of child abuse -- "of a sexual nature," by Paterno's own testimony -- to the police.

There is no "waiting" necessary. Please stop saying this. It is utter nonsense.

3. You write:

"People are making assumptions about what Joe did or didn’t know, what Joe did or didn’t do, and I can’t tell you that those assumptions are wrong. But I can tell you that they are assumptions based on one side of the story."

Yes, they are based on one side of the story: ON JOE PATERNO'S side of the story. Per his grand jury testimony.

There are "assumptions" about what Paterno knew over a 13 year period. But there are FACTS about what he knew of the 2002 incident. By his own admission. There are FACTS about what he did not do: inform the police.

4. You write:

"It is still unclear what Paterno did in this case. It will remain unclear for a while. You might be one of the hundreds and hundreds of people I’ve heard from who know EXACTLY what Paterno did. He HAD to know this. He DEFINITELY knew that. He COULD have done something. I respect that. Joe Paterno’s a public figure. You have every right to believe what you want to believe and be absolutely certain about it. But since we have not heard from Joe, not heard from former athletic director Tim Curley, not heard from GA/assistant coach Mike McQueary, not heard from anyone who was in the room, I’ll repeat: It’s unclear. A determined grand jury did not charge Joe Paterno with any crime. A motivated reporting barrage, so far anyway, has not uncovered a single thing that can tell us definitively what Joe Paterno knew."

You are simply lying.

Paterno's own testimony provides a bare minimum of what he knew. And his testimony alone -- and the fact that police were not called by him -- is damning. Those two facts alone -- FACTS -- make Paterno worthy of utter contempt.

One needs nothing else.

Ray DiPerna
November 11


Second email:

Thinking about this more... I always, until now, had the sense in reading your writing that you understood the concepts, and were careful to think them through.

Look, I don't want to judge what's in your head, but it seems like you went down there to write a puff piece on Paterno, and the real world got in the way.

The actual facts of what Paterno knew and did not do became inconvenient and a nuisance to your project.

You have a book deal; you have been granted access to Paterno and his family; it seems like you likely strongly implied to them -- if not flat out stated -- that your book was going to paint Paterno in a favorable light.

I think if you have to write a book that rightly excoriates Paterno for ignoring at least one specific reported incident of child sex abuse -- assuming you can actually understand that that is what happened -- you will feel that you have broken your bond to them and the trust they had in you.

Honestly, you should really resign from the book project at this point, give the advance back, and try to get released from the publisher's contract. It appears for all the world that you can no longer write the puff piece you set out to write. You appear to have been duped by Paterno and his cult as badly as anyone else has been.

Once more: even drawing every inference in favor of Paterno, IF ALL PATERNO KNEW about Sandusky was what Paterno testified to before the grand jury -- and it is virtually impossible to believe that that's all he knew -- Paterno acted shamefully in ignoring child sex abuse, and should be treated with scorn. (Paterno says McQueary didn't make him aware of "the very specific details." Even if that's true -- and it strains belief -- Paterno had enough information to act on, by his own testimony.)

I'm frankly tired of hearing about what a great guy Paterno was. I'm sure he did a lot of good, and this doesn't erase that, but it is one hell of a counterweight. When it came time for Paterno and the others to confront evil, they failed to act. They needed to stand up and be counted. They needed to stand up for a kid who had been visited with unspeakable crimes, and act to try to make sure that it didn't happen again. They, against all odds, did nothing.

Paterno deserves for history to understand that when the time came for him to show the true mane he was, he did not stand up for people -- children -- who couldn't stand up for themselves.
   74. Srul Itza Posted: December 16, 2011 at 12:07 AM (#4017457)
He was informed (and admitted as much) that child rape was taking place


I thought he had denied being told that explicitly, and that this was a point of contention between him and McCleary
   75. Lassus Posted: December 16, 2011 at 12:20 AM (#4017462)
The road to hell and all, but burying his head in the sand is at least a somewhat understandable, if not sympathetic, thing to do.

As has been explained repeatedly here and elsewhere, it was not understandable. It was morally and ethically bankrupt and therefore an absolute wrong. Would it have been easy? Hell no. But it's a lot easier than being molested.

Er, I meant this in regards to Paterno burying his head in the sand, not Poz, who I realize now you may have actually meant. If it is Poz you meant, the label I'd lay on him isn't anywhere near as harsh, but still damning, to me: clueless.


Nevertheless, I found cause to write the following two emails to Posnanski a few weeks back. (He didn't respond.)Here's what I wrote him. Emails entitled: "On Paterno. Please make yourself stop."

They are really good emails, but with that subject, I guarantee he erased them unopened. You kind of torpedoed yourself there.
   76. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM (#4017463)
He was informed (and admitted as much) that child rape was taking place

I thought he had denied being told that explicitly, and that this was a point of contention between him and McCleary


From the first grand jury report:

"Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

So unless the grand jury report is just flat wrong as to the basic fact of what Paterno testified to, by Paterno's own admission he (at a minimum) received a report from McQueary that McQueary saw Sandusly in the showers "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

Even if Paterno knew absolutely nothing else about any of this, going back years before 2002, that was more than enough for him to make sure that the report went to state authorities.

And that's why Posnanski's comments about this are so despicable. There is no "jumping to conclusions about Paterno's role." There are no "maybes" about what Paterno did. There are no "I don't know whether Paterno followed up"s. There are no "assumptions about what Joe did or didn't know," or "assumptions based on one side of the story," or "unclear things about what Paterno did."

We know what Paterno *didn't* do. He didn't see to it that the matter went to state authorities.

And that's at a bare minimum, and that's assuming all inferences most favorable to Paterno.
   77. ray james Posted: December 16, 2011 at 12:51 AM (#4017472)
But if we'd prefer an "all that is necessary for evil to triumph" account, I'll stick with Posnanski.


Well, he's already compromised himself so fatally so I don't know why you would want to stick with him. Unless you're expecting him to all of a sudden find religion and actually stand for something. Because if that doesn't happen, all you're going to get out of Poznanski is something like this:

But you can't hold a football coach responsible for the behavior of a sick twisted individual who works for him. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole NCAA system? And if the whole NCAA system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, football fans - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to Joe, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
   78. ray james Posted: December 16, 2011 at 01:09 AM (#4017474)
They are really good emails, but with that subject, I guarantee he erased them unopened. You kind of torpedoed yourself there.


I agree with Lassus, Ray. If you want your correspondence to be read and bear some weight with Poznanski, I would avoid the name calling as well. Even if Poznanski IS lying, calling him that will just cause him to ignore you and the legitimate points you are making.

You need to appear more sympathetic and less confrontational.

Just my two cents. The factual content of your email was spot on.
   79. Lassus Posted: December 16, 2011 at 01:22 AM (#4017476)
Oh, I have no problem with the confrontational aspect of the email itself, just specifically the subject line. It portends a rant (even though the email wasn't very ranty), and for a journalist already in the midst of a massive shitstorm, I'd imagine it's an instant delete.
   80. PerroX Posted: December 16, 2011 at 01:22 AM (#4017477)
But that approach doesn't work at all in a case involving child molestation. There is no amount of complexity and depth that can make you think, okay, so he looked the other way while his friend diddled little kids. But, look at all the good he's done!

It doesn't just not work, it actually makes it worse. Worse that an apparently good guy could be so bad and worse that an apparently good judge of character could get it so wrong.


First, Pos is a sportswriter. He may be today's best sportswriter, but still a sportswriter. And not even the so-called hard news guys are worth a damn anymore.

Second, why is child molestation beyond the pale of nuanced consideration? Putting aside defense of Paterno, the unwillingness to look closely at the complexities of the issue - particularly that most abusers were victims themselves, but also the complexities of child sexuality and the secrecy and shame that help shield abuse from discovery - ensure that it will continue to be a problem.

We never want to consider the that the line of good and evil runs through the heart of every person. Prosecute and punish wrongful actions, but lets no longer pretend that some people are good and some bad.
   81. Howie Menckel Posted: December 16, 2011 at 01:43 AM (#4017490)
Well, some people write to a journalist just looking to vent, and others actually seek a response.

That was an effective vent, or an ineffective way to hope for a response.

Nothing wrong with either approach; the key is in writing a commentary that is in sync your goal.
   82. bunyon Posted: December 16, 2011 at 02:04 AM (#4017497)
Perros, we're all mixtures of good and bad, of course. You can only work hard so that your life is a net good. My point was that in most of these sports figures lives, the "bad" is immature onfield behavior, quitting on a team, cheating, cursing, leaving for more money, etc. Things that really aren't so bad. No real victims, just a part in the larger, and mostly meaningless, sports narrative. Many do seriously "good" things with charities, role-modeling, etc. They are net ahead and, so, a nuanced accouting of their lives makes some sense as it does for most, but not all, of us.

I don't doubt that Joe Paterno has done a lot of really good things for people over the years. He's donated lots of money, made some really nice speeches, been a role-model and advocate for education. But looking the other way at child molestation is such a serious wrong that it vastly outweighs these other goods. It isn't JUST child molestation. If he'd murdered someone, for instance, I'd feel the same way. There are simply some wrongs that can't be remedied with charity work.
   83. Lars6788 Posted: December 16, 2011 at 02:16 AM (#4017500)
Looking at this simplistically - we are talking about someone who assaulted a child, a violation and an attack and someone's role in ignoring it otherwise.

What other justification does one need to compel a person like Paterno to do something more than just report it and move on?

Maybe Sandusky needed heavy counseling instead of going with the status quo of abusing more kids - but that was his decision as an adult and it's hard to argue on his motives / for his behalf.


First, Pos is a sportswriter. He may be today's best sportswriter, but still a sportswriter. And not even the so-called hard news guys are worth a damn anymore.

Second, why is child molestation beyond the pale of nuanced consideration? Putting aside defense of Paterno, the unwillingness to look closely at the complexities of the issue - particularly that most abusers were victims themselves, but also the complexities of child sexuality and the secrecy and shame that help shield abuse from discovery - ensure that it will continue to be a problem.

We never want to consider the that the line of goo
   84. PerroX Posted: December 16, 2011 at 02:35 AM (#4017503)
Football destines children to crippling injury and shortened lifespans before they have any ability to make a rational, adult decision about the choice. But that kind of thing is more than morally acceptable.

I think Paterno is wrong and Sandusky belongs in jail, and Pos deserves significant criticism. But lets not pretend we don't accept much worse things than child rape without losing a minutes sleep over them. IOW, I don't believe child sexual abuse falls into a special category of evil.
   85. PerroX Posted: December 16, 2011 at 02:36 AM (#4017504)
For instance, our government intentionally tortures and murders children without cause. Are we horrible people for turning a blind eye to that?
   86. Srul Itza Posted: December 16, 2011 at 02:46 AM (#4017505)
You need to appear more sympathetic and less confrontational.


IOW he needs to be somebody other than Ray Diperna
   87. ray james Posted: December 16, 2011 at 03:05 AM (#4017513)
IOW, I don't believe child sexual abuse falls into a special category of evil.


I don't know what you mean by "special category of evil" but I can't think of too many things worse. Murder and kidnapping maybe.
   88. Morty Causa Posted: December 16, 2011 at 03:06 AM (#4017514)
I may have missed it, and anyway I want to be clear on this point, but what exactly did Paterno do with the information he received about Sandusky from McQueary, and why was that under law woefully insufficient? We all know that probably everyone now wishes they would have done things differently, and done more, but exactly what were the legal duties of the participants in this horrible thing, starting with Paterno? How does the university police authority play into this? I mean, if you report it to them, have you met your duty under law?
   89. RobertMachemer Posted: December 16, 2011 at 03:10 AM (#4017516)
Gaelan is a treasure. Almost as good as km.
The King's Ankus comes to mind.
   90. PerroX Posted: December 16, 2011 at 03:15 AM (#4017518)
What I mean is people will defend the most heinous actions imaginable but say Sandusky's crimes are beyond the pale of discussinv in a rational manner. So we have to shun Pos because he demonstrated partiality and blindness in regard to the subject he was covering. The same holds true for every journalist in the country if they have any self-interest in the person they are covering at all, and in keeping their jobs. And I'm talking murder, rape, and kidnapping.

People are only honest and moral where they have no self-interest at stake. Which includes all us bbtf soapboxers.
   91. ray james Posted: December 16, 2011 at 03:19 AM (#4017520)
Morty, Sandusky reports directly to Paterno. When Paterno got the information of possible sexual abuse by Sandusky from McQuerry, all he did was report it to the AD and let it go at that. He didn't confront Sandusky about it, he didn't report it to campus police, he didn't follow up, he didn't invoke any changes in rules regarding Sandusky and his ability to access minors around campus or anywhere else... nothing. It's unbelievably irresponsible, really criminally irresponsible, to take the approach Paterno took.
   92. ray james Posted: December 16, 2011 at 03:25 AM (#4017525)
People are only honest and moral where they have no self-interest at stake.


I don't believe that to be true at all. People often choose to take the high ground rather than knuckle under to expediency or self-interest. In fact, it's the hallmark of the responsible and ethical adult to do so.

And really, self-interest is in the eye of the beholder. You think Paterno wouldn't have done things differently if he had the chance to do it all over again? You bet your behind he would. But he was shortsighted and hoped by letting things slide under the rug, that somehow his reputation wouldn't have gotten sullied. He sacrificed his longterm interests for his shortterm interests.

It's the age old story of the cover-up being worse than the crime.
   93. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: December 16, 2011 at 03:27 AM (#4017527)
I may have missed it, and anyway I want to be clear on this point, but what exactly did Paterno do with the information he received about Sandusky from McQueary, and why was that under law woefully insufficient?

He supposedly reported it to his "boss", i.e. a person he tells what to do. Legally, that was all he was required to do. And speculating now, but it would not surprise me at all, if the information to the AD was passed along with the instruction to "make it go away", either explicitly, implicitly.

How does the university police authority play into this? I mean, if you report it to them, have you met your duty under law?

AFAICT, university police is "real" police, although they would almost certainly enlist the help of the local authorities in a case like this. So informing them would have been enough, but they never were...
   94. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 16, 2011 at 04:09 AM (#4017537)
I don't know what you mean by "special category of evil" but I can't think of too many things worse. Murder and kidnapping maybe.


Torture would be another one, and matches Perros' point that many, many people condone things that are worse than what Sandusky did.
   95. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 16, 2011 at 04:25 AM (#4017542)
The Sandusky grand jury presentment contains mostly paraphrases of witness testimony, interspersed with short quotes. Its report of Paterno's statement that McQueary told him that Sandusky was doing something of a sexual nature was not in quotes. There are a lot of inconsistencies in what McQueary has said at different times, and inconsistencies between what he said he said and what others said he said.

I think we need to let this one play out. I will not be surprised if the peripheral characters in this story (Paterno, Schultz, Curley, Spanier) are to a large extent vindicated by further scrutiny.
   96. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2011 at 04:34 AM (#4017548)
You need to appear more sympathetic and less confrontational.

IOW he needs to be somebody other than Ray Diperna


Well, I only know one way to roll. Regardless, Posnanski had my email. He could do with it what he pleased. I don't know that I was looking for a response, specifically.
   97. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2011 at 04:36 AM (#4017549)
I think we need to let this one play out. I will not be surprised if the peripheral characters in this story (Paterno, Schultz, Curley, Spanier) are to a large extent vindicated by further scrutiny.


I would be shocked.

In fact, I'd be shocked if the _only_ thing they were guilty of was dropping the ball. This seems more like an active conspiracy to cover this up, given the 1998 incident, and the fact that Sandusky was allowed to roam free on the campus for nearly a decade following McQueary's allegation -- with little boys in tow.

And given that they, you know, didn't report an incident of child rape to the state authorities. The thing virtually speaks for itself.

Follow the money, and the reputations on the line (Paterno's; the school's; the program's; the charity's).
   98. base ball chick Posted: December 16, 2011 at 04:39 AM (#4017551)
andere

are you saying that mcqueary did NOT tell paterno? the ONLY way these guys can be vindicated is if mcqueary was lying about telling paterno, because it sure looks as if sandusky is a pedophile - all the accusers coming out of the closet.
   99. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2011 at 04:47 AM (#4017553)
are you saying that mcqueary did NOT tell paterno? the ONLY way these guys can be vindicated is if mcqueary was lying about telling paterno


And since Paterno already testified that McQueary told him he saw Sandusky in the showers "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy," McQueary can't be said to have been lying about the central claim.
   100. base ball chick Posted: December 16, 2011 at 04:52 AM (#4017556)
given who joe paterno IS and how incredibly powerful he actually IS/WAS, sorry, but just telling the AD - who is significantly less powerful in real life, despite the title, and never bothering to folow up on it? when you are JOE PATERNO?

cmon, i can not believe that paterno made sure that a quiet thorough investigation was done and they thought sandusky was absolutely innocent of ANY wrongdoing.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTB progressing with Montreal Sister City plan
(39 - 1:59am, Sep 28)
Last: Doug Jones threw harder than me

NewsblogWhy Detroit Tigers, Chicago White Sox stormed the field: 'It wasn't intentional'
(2 - 1:44am, Sep 28)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogShohei Ohtani, on future with Los Angeles Angels: 'I want to win'
(19 - 1:29am, Sep 28)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogBrother HRs off brother for first time since '75
(6 - 12:59am, Sep 28)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogThe Cardinals’ Impressive Winning Streak Doesn’t Guarantee October Success
(14 - 12:50am, Sep 28)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogNBA 2021 Playoffs+ thread
(4653 - 10:50pm, Sep 27)
Last: PJ Martinez

Sox TherapyThat Didn’t Go Well, But The Situation Is Still Very Good
(21 - 10:36pm, Sep 27)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(302 - 9:02pm, Sep 27)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogArizona Diamondbacks give manager Torey Lovullo one-year extension despite 104-loss season
(11 - 7:34pm, Sep 27)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogWhich MLB managers are on the hot seat? Ranking four skippers most likely to be fired after 2021 season
(2 - 6:47pm, Sep 27)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

Newsblog14 wins in a row! Cards tie 1935 club record
(17 - 6:24pm, Sep 27)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogChicago Cubs plan to be 'really active" in MLB free agency, says team president Jed Hoyer
(13 - 6:13pm, Sep 27)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMullins 1st Oriole in 30-30 club: 'It's surreal'
(29 - 6:11pm, Sep 27)
Last: Ned Garvin: Male Prostitute

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(14214 - 5:10pm, Sep 27)
Last: GregD

NewsblogFINAL REGULAR SEASON OMNICHATTER! for September 27 thru Game 162!
(8 - 5:06pm, Sep 27)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.8858 seconds
48 querie(s) executed