And, once again, you display a remarkable ability to not know what the *expletive deleted* you're talking about.
Jerry Sandusky was NOT on Joe Paterno's staff in 2002 when the abuse allegations were first brought to Paterno's attention.
Sandusky RETIRED IN 1999 after he was told that he would not become head coach when Paterno retired. Sandusky had no coaching duties, and he was NOT a member of Paterno's staff.
At that point, Sandusky was a coach emeritus. The athletic director provided him with access to Penn State facilities -- Paterno had little to no say over that arrangement.
No, Paterno didn't do enough to counter this incident when it was brought to his attention. That's on him, and always will be.
*cough*
The first investigation was in 1998. The alleged activity is alleged to have started in 1994. He retired in 1999. So he was retired and not on the staff during the 2002 and 2011 sets of allegations involving Penn State. There was thing involving a high school as well, but obviously not directly PSU related. Most likely, several high schools.
Sandusky was allegedly using the Second Mile camp at Penn State to recruit, and using an empty shower at Penn State's football facilities, from well before and after he retired. If you think Paterno had no say of who could use the football facilities, I respectfully disagree. There were folks technically higher on the org chart, but ehhh... It's Joe Paterno. Dude ran the program. But yes, Athletic Director Tim Curley was more directly involved with the coverup and most recently committed perjury.
He was banned from bringing boys onto main campus after the 2002 allegations. He continued doing so at remote campuses.
I am in the area, and I basically concur with fistful's comment. Fistful's comment may not have been detailed, but it's not completely wrong either. He was on staff during the 1998 allegations, was not reported in the 2002 allegations, and was allowed access to PSU facilities after each separate allegation. While not collecting a paycheck and I suppose not technically "on staff" (if one makes the argument that only paid personnel count as being on staff) on the 2002 and 2011 allegations (but was on the 1998 allegations), he maintained a strong mostly official affiliation with PSU throughout the multiple incidents.
"Ooh, I was wrong for once."
And once again, "facts" out of order. Yet another entry in the epic litany.
"So?"
So?
So, you don't believe that having the actual facts in order is important? You don't believe that having the actual facts would somehow be to your benefit?
You think that throwing out a haphazardly assembled set of statements and seeing where they land is a suitable denouement to your argument?
Curious.
...
Except I don't think he was wrong unless you're going with a legalistic approach and defining the terms very carefully. "affiliated" is the more technically correct term. If fistful agrees to modify his statement to "And he kept the guy affiliated with PSU for 13 years, with varying degrees of employment/affiliation and varying levels of logistical support in aiding molesting children?", would you be satisfied?
