SEPTEMBER, 24, 2012 —- NCAA President Mark Emmert revealed last Friday that the unprecedented sanctions his organization recently levied againstPenn State University were evidently based on a false assumption.

Speaking to the Detroit Economic Club at Ford Field, Emmert said, regarding the criminal case against Jerry Sandusky, if Penn State had brought it forward when initial claims of abuse began and separated itself at that time, the NCAA never would have been involved. The ensuring years of cover-up, Emmert implied, caused the NCAA action.

This bombshell exposes a basic, but colossal error in Emmert’s, and therefore, the NCAA’s understanding of the Penn State case: the first claim of abuse against Sandusky was in 1998, and it was, in fact, Penn State police who sent the case to the Centre County District Attorney at that time. The case was handled by Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW), involving interviews with Sandusky by two separate psychologists, and the eventual notification of officials at The Second Mile. The conclusion was that Sandusky exhibited no criminal or pedophile behavior and the District Attorney, Penn State Police, State College Police, CYS and DPW had done the investigation
thoroughly and cleared Sandusky.

Further demonstrating the lack of knowledge Emmert seems to have about even the basic details of the Penn State case, he also shared with his audience of business professionals that the Freeh Report was “more exhaustive” than anything the NCAA could have done. In one of the largest inaccuracies of his presentation, Emmert indicated that Louis Freeh “had subpoena power at the University,” which is grossly inaccurate, and one of the universal criticisms of the report. In fact, no one interviewed was legally compelled to tell the truth, or to even participate in the Freeh investigation. None of the major names in the Penn State case was interviewed for the report — including Joe Paterno (although he offered), Tim Curley, Gary Schultz or Mike
McQueary – leaving many legal experts to strongly condemn the overall validity of its findings.

Finally, Emmert told his Detroit Economic Club audience that Penn State University officials said they were not disputing the facts in the Freeh Report, “so we had the facts,” Emmert said.

Apparently, though, they did not.

pdf: 09.24.12_SanctionsFaultySupposition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s