The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

Archive for the tag “scandal”

18 Nov 2011
4 Comments

The Next Day: Jim Boeheim Continues “All-In” Strategy

With a police investigation just beginning into the accusations of molestation levied against Bernie Fine, Jim Boeheim has ramped up his “all-in” strategy.  While at least one Syracuse blog has posited that it is ESPN that is playing “a dangerous game,” The Confidential thinks otherwise.  Instead, the Confidential believes that it is Jim Boeheim that is playing the dangerous game here.  A very dangerous game.

In fact, there is nothing unequivocal about Jim Boeheim’s statements in this matter.  He is 100% behind Fine.  He is 100% against the accusers.  As reported by Syracuse.com, Boeheim has said:

“This is alleged to have occurred … what?” Boeheim asked late Thursday night. “Twenty years ago? Am I in the right neighborhood? It might be 26 years ago? So, we are supposed to what? Stop the presses 26 years later? For a false allegation? For what I absolutely believe is a false allegation? I know he’s lying about me seeing him in his hotel room. That’s a lie. If he’s going to tell one lie, I’m sure there’s a few more of them.”

Boeheim was speaking of Bobby Davis, the 39-year-old man who has declared that Fine, SU’s assistant basketball coach for 36 seasons, molested him on hundreds of occasions over a period of some 15 years beginning when Davis was 12 or 13. Specifically, Boeheim was referencing the charge by Davis that he, Boeheim, had seen Davis on multiple occasions in Fine’s hotel room on Orange basketball road trips.

“I never have been in Bernie Fine’s hotel room in my life,” Boeheim said. “This is what, 16 to 18 years ago, or whatever it is? But I don’t recall ever walking into any of my assistant coaches’ rooms. Now, could I have once … one time? I have a pretty good recollection of things, but I don’t ever recollect ever walking into Bernie Fine’s hotel room. Ever.”

Boeheim did admit that Davis, who lived in Fine’s basement for a while as a teen and served for a time as an Orange ball boy, did periodically travel with the SU basketball team. But, Boeheim offered, Davis traveled for a practical reason.

“I know Bobby,” Boeheim said. “He was one of 300 ball boys we’ve had. This kid ended up being a babysitter for Bernie. He babysat Bernie’s kids. That’s why he was on the trips. He’d babysit. The kid only traveled, to my knowledge, if he was babysitting Bernie’s kids. This is when he was 18 years old. He was helping to babysit the kids. That’s the only time I know about, from talking with Bernie.”

Asked what Davis’ possible motivation would be to tell his disturbing story at this time, Boeheim hesitated not at all.

“Here’s why,” he said. “The Penn State thing came out and the kid behind this is trying to get money. He’s tried before. And now he’s trying again. If he gets this, he’s going to sue the university and Bernie. What do you think is going to happen at Penn State? You know how much money is going to be involved in civil suits? I’d say about $50 million. That’s what this is about. Money.”

No middle-ground here at all.  Boeheim is calling the accuser a liar and providing a motive.

As a preliminary matter, as it relates to the singular question of whether Bernie Fine had inappropriate contact with two minors, there are only two possibilities.  The first possibility is that the victims’ accusations are untrue.  The second possibility is that Bernie Fine’s denial is untrue.  What else is there?

Suppose the victims’ accusations are untrue.  Who is going to make that determination?  A jury found OJ Simpson to be not guilty of murder, but a fair number of people deemed that to be an incorrect verdict.  Strictly speaking, the jury only made the conclusion that he was not guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  So maybe they were 80% sure he was guilty, but did not think that 80% guilty met the standard.  If a jury finds Bernie Fine not guilty, will the public be satisfied with that conclusion?  Or will there be the backlash: “sure, a Syracuse jury did not find the coach innocent…must have been a kangaroo court.”

The same goes for a decision by the police or prosecutor not to press charges.  It is unclear whether any outsiders will truly give due credit to such a determination made by local authorities.  So there may continue to be a sense of doubt.

In the best case scenario for Bernie Fine, not only do the police not press charges against him, the police press charges against the accusers for making a false allegation.  That would be the type of message that suggests that not only is Bernie Fine innocent, but the evidence suggests otherwise.  A similar scenario would be if the accusers were charged with conspiracy.  Such a scenario could arise if one accuser decides to come clean that it is a false allegation.

Short of that, it is difficult to envision a situation where this issue is resolved without some lingering doubt.  This means that, even within the “untrue” side of the equation, there is the possibility of Boeheim having miscalculated in his zeal.  It’s difficult to prove a negative.  This includes “my long-term assistant did not molest anyone.”  You can be confident in his innocence, but that only goes so far.

In contrast, what if the accusations are true?  The unwavering support is honorable; however, unless it is 100% impossible for the allegations to be false–failing to acknowledge the minimal possibility could be very troublesome.  In the circumstance where the accusations are true, Boeheim will have put his reputation fully on the line to defend Bernie Fine only to have that blow up in his face.   The honor in defending his colleague will shift to a valid criticism that he is incapable of making character determinations.  What begs the question–why make the determination at all?

In fact, incorrectly calling someone a liar and accusing them of making up statements for the purpose of money will lead to lawsuits. While Boeheim might have avoided responsibility based on the circumstances of the conduct, false statements might open up a new door of potential liability.

And this will also cause Boeheim to be lumped into the same category as Paterno.  Sure, you don’t believe it can happen.  But you don’t make that decision–you make sure that the police make that decision.  And you don’t interfere with the police making that decision by making public statements putting the weight of your reputation against the accusers.  This could all end very badly for Boeheim.

It is also not clear what would qualify as “truth.”  If the police open an investigation and find other victims, is that enough to be “truth”?  If it goes to a grand jury, is that enough to be “truth”?  If there is an indictment, is that enough to be “truth”?  Or will it take a conviction. An argument could be made that it is “all of the above.” If so, there are many stages where Boeheim will have erred in placing his reputation behind Fine.

There is one more matter here.  Syracuse University issued a statement.  The Chancellor issued a statement.  Unless Boeheim was encouraged to make a statement by the Syracuse legal team, he may have gone against the preferences of that team.  If so, even if Boeheim is right, he may have caused more trouble for his employer.

Boeheim deserves credit for supporting Fine, but he has certainly gone “all in.”  And even if you think you have a great hand, going “all in” is not without its risks.

What do you think?  And not just whether you would respect what Boeheim has done, was it the smart thing to do?

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Basketball, Uncategorized and tagged , , ,
17 Nov 2011
3 Comments

Syracuse Assistant B-Ball Coach Fine Being Investigated for Molestation

Longtime Syracuse University Assistant Basketball Coach Bernie Fine has been placed on administrative leave based on an investigation into possible child molestation.  On the heels of a major scandal at Penn State (as well as an issue at The Citadel), this report hits close to home, as Syracuse University is set to join the ACC in the near future.

While the Penn State and Syracuse situations share the common bond of accusations of molestation against a person associated with the program, it should be noted that there are substantial differences between what is known about the situation at Syracuse and the situation at Penn State.  As the New York Times has reported, Syracuse University conducted its own investigation into these allegations in 2005:

In a statement, the university said that “an adult male” came to them in 2005 and the university started its own four-month investigation into the allegations. The statement said that the university’s legal counsel spoke with people who “the complainant said would support his claims” and that “all of those identified by the complainant denied any wrongful conduct” by Fine. The statement also said that Fine “vehemently denied the allegations.”

In other words, Syracuse investigated after the police declined to investigate.  So this is not a matter of Syracuse not informing the police.  By the time it got to Syracuse, it was post-police.  And Syracuse still investigated.  Syracuse was apparently unable to corroborate the information that the alleged victim said would be corroborated.  The alleged victim suggested that certain witnesses be interviewed and those witnesses did not confirm the accusations.

Significantly, in order for this matter to rise to the level of Penn State, it would require an assistant coach to witness an incident and report it to Jim Boeheim, who would have to then pass the matter upstream and lose interest.  This certainly is not alleged to have happened at Syracuse.  And there is no sense that Jim Boeheim or anyone at Syracuse University was ever presented with enough to conclude that the report was credible. Most importantly, the report is not grand jury findings, but the version of events provided by a 39-year old victim, not under oath at the time.  No third party has deemed them credible yet.

And these are just some of the differences.  Under the circumstances, while there might be a rush to judgment to criticize Syracuse, there should be an equally compelling rush to judgment to not criticize Syracuse.

At least at this early juncture.  There is certainly more to come.

In fact, the Confidential certainly does not want to suggest that the alleged victim is not being truthful.  Only the victim and Fine know for sure.  All that can be hoped for is that any investigation that takes place uncovers the truth–whether it is the alleged victim’s allegations or Fine’s denials.  In the wake of the Penn State situation, it is understandable that this might be the environment that would persuade a victim to feel more comfortable coming forward.  Perhaps the alleged victim is hoping for same.  But nobody really knows.  And in the absence of numerous allegations by victims, as in the Sandusky situation, it is harder to rush to judgment for any side.

Nevertheless, the Confidential does take issue with Jim Boeheim opining on this issue.  He should probably let his University leaders do most of the talking here.  He cannot be objective when it comes to his long-time assistant.  And, from a strategic standpoint, does he really want to go “all in” by taking a position.  A more reasoned approach would have been to at least hedge his bets somewhat.  You never really know anyone.  He may be confident that Fine is innocent.  But can he be 100% sure?   According to ESPN, Boeheim responded strongly to the alleged victim’s statement that Boeheim might have seen him:

“He makes the point that he was around and traveling with the team,” Boeheim said. “Not that I know of. I never saw him. He is quoted — (that) I saw him in the room. I have never been in Bernie Fine’s room in my life. That is an outright lie.”

Yep, that’s going “all in.”  He better be right.

Finally, the Confidential was strong in its criticism of Penn State in opinions such as this, this, and this.   The Confidential will be equally critical if facts come out demonstrating that this is closer to the Penn State situation than it seems right now.  Needless to say, this will be newsworthy for quite some time.  A major university, and its various departments, cannot support child molesters.  They also cannot cover-up instances of child molestation.  But the current “facts” just do not come anywhere close to suggesting that anything of that sort has occurred at Syracuse.

What do you think?

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Basketball, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , ,
11 Nov 2011

Penn State & Death Penalty

Wow.  Already we have a respected commentator suggesting that Penn State should drop football for a year or two.  ESPN’s Lester Munson states as follows:

Consider the cancellation of the football program for a period of at least two years. It might not be possible to establish a new culture without the total elimination of the old one. A two-year hiatus might be the only way to eliminate a systemic problem. How important is football to an institution of higher learning that serves 95,000 students and is supposed to be dedicated to the pursuit of excellence? When Tulane University was caught in a basketball point-shaving scandal in the mid-1980s, the university leadership eliminated the sport for several years to allow a complete renewal of values. When the U.S. Congress discovered a series of abuses in 2008 in its page program, which was designed to offer opportunities to young people, the members of Congress agreed to eliminate it altogether.

He also notes just how hard that would be for the Board of Trustees to do.  So let’s not kid ourselves about the likelihood of that happening.

But it remains a possibility.  And, if it did happen, what would the repercussions be?

Your answer will be the “denial” answer.  Why even think about that which cannot happen?

To that, the Confidential notes that this is a scandal of unprecedented terms:

#1  The SMU scandal involved paying players.  To be sure, that is cheating.  However, it hardly violates the 10 Commandments.  It violates an NCAA rule that seeks to promote amateurism in sports.  Big difference.

#2 Another scandal involved the cover-up of a murder at Baylor.  The cover-up of a murder by the basketball coach is certainly reprehensible.  But it was a one-time incident, rather than systemic.  The murder victim was not a child.

Compare to the instant matter.  More than 99% of the country finds child sexual abuse reprehensible and disgusting.  Things get wishy-washy when a parent is criminally charged for a severe or unique punishment of a child.  That is partially why Bobby Knight remained a polarizing figure.  When it comes to discipline, things get murkier for some.  Child sexual abuse is never defended.  It is always taboo and properly so.  There is no excuse for not doing the maximum to prevent it.  It is newsworthy whenever it is reported.  There is no defense by those who commit it.

And that is where Penn State finds itself… straddling the line between committing it and enabling it.  If one imputes the conduct of Sandusky to the University, that is bad enough.  Molesting children on trips to watch bowl games or in the locker room is terrible.  Not ensuring that this repeat offender be criminally investigated is inexcusable. That’s the message that is being sent.  Sure, Joe Paterno may or may not be more culpable than others… but this all happened at Penn State. And the odds are that Sandusky did not start doing this in 1998.

But ask your grandmother what she thinks of this scandal?  She’ll know about it and have an opinion.  That is why this situation is drastic.

If you are Penn State, trying to make this go away quickly can have a backlash.  Those watching from afar will not be pleased if there is not an appropriate response. This is the type of no-lose situation for Congress to get involved in and hold hearings about: has college athletics gotten too big to police itself?  Who, other than the colleges, will oppose this?  In fact, there will be college professors supporting the inquiry.  And I am sure the IRS wouldn’t mind convincing folks that we should be done pretending that athletic departments are entitled to the same tax breaks as charities and churches.  The vultures will be circling.

Meanwhile, there sits Penn State.  If it says that it “cannot cancel football,” that fuels the fire of those who would see a college sports environment where the schools are simply unable or unwilling to police themselves.  If it cancels football, it will suffer financially and endure a major hit to its reputation.  But it will also begin the process of rebuilding its reputation.  And its leadership may conclude that it is the only way to truly rebuild its reputation.

And Penn State is better situated to recover than SMU.  Penn State is a major public institution.  It has a local and national following.  There will always be 45,000 students streaming through.  It has the markets.  It can survive.

So let’s not pretend it is impossible.  Even if unlikely, it is possible.

Then what?

Even if for two years, the 12-team Big 10 suddenly becomes an 11 team conference.  Under NCAA rules, no championship game.  Meanwhile, the biggest embarrassment in college sports took place within the Big 10. Compounding improbability upon improbability, could the Big 10 go in a different direction?  At that point, Penn State would be a shell of itself in the one thing that matters most–college football.  But the Big 10 prides itself on academics, and Penn State would not suffer there.  There would still be the research consortium.  And all the non-revenue-generating sports.  Just does not seem likely.

But as long as we are talking remote possibilities, how ironic would it be if Penn State ended up separating from the Big 10 and joining the Big East.  A Big East without Pitt and Syracuse.  A Big East without West Virginia and Boston College.   In this crazy world where the Big 10 has 12 teams, the Big 12 has 10 teams, and the Big East is considering San Diego St., we have long since moved past the idea of things working out in an orderly fashion.  So, yeah, we might as well throw irony into the mix too.  We are beyond the point of being surprised.

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , ,
10 Nov 2011
1 Comment

Joe Paterno the Victim? Please.

After a week full of drama, someone at Penn State finally had the good sense to do the right thing.  Joe Paterno–his legacy tarnished and being further tarnished–has been fired.  There are so many stories on this front that no link is necessary.  If you have a TV or the Internet, you know by now.

In fact, you also know that the Penn State campus was the scene of a riot/protest.  Indeed, the students protested because Paterno will not be allowed to earn a salary sitting upstairs watching the game this Saturday.  Instead, like them, he must watch as a fan rather than a coach.  The horror.

As if Joe Paterno is a victim in this mess.

In fact, let’s just make a list here of the potential victims of this drama:

A. Those kids sexually abused by Sandusky after 2002. 

Most decent people would consider these folks the victims here.  Because of the lack of a criminal investigation, Sandusky was never investigated regarding the 2002 incident.  That is clear.  This meant that there was no opportunity for Sandusky to go to jail.  And without Sandusky in jail, other children were abused.  Regardless of the act–several more children were sexually abused.  They have had their lives permanently harmed.  What was done to them is life-shattering to an adult.  Slide that back to preadolescence and try to imagine how life shattering that would be.  Really… do we need to go on?  If you cannot fathom the victimization here, you are non-human.  5 or more people at Penn State had the opportunity to intervene and did not do so–leading to these victims.

B.  Joe Paterno.

According to Paterno’s supporters, he is somehow the victim of a witch hunt or a scapegoat.  For all those years, Paterno did so many good things.  How could he be fired when the guy who witnessed the rape has not been fired yet?  Paterno said he would resign at the end of the season (January) and now he has to stop coaching in November.  No more game days.  He complied with the letter of the law.  It’s not his fault that others neglected to report the rape.  Paterno had other things to do.

Compare (A) and (B).

Which one merits a protest?  Look, a lot of us have been to college.  Protesting is part of the growth process.  You learn that authority can be challenged.

A protest was inevitable.  But can any reasonable person conclude that (B) was worth protesting for, especially if the students already determined that (A) was not worth protesting for? If the Penn State students had any rational thought, they would have been protesting against Paterno.  Even legends have moral duties.  Frankly, legends may have greater moral duties sometimes.  Comes with the territory.  But they at least have the same moral duties as the rest of us.  Nobody is every too busy or important to report child abuse.  That’s a protest message the world could support.

And if any student were to claim “woe is me,” they can be rightfully looked at with disgust.  A total lack of perspective.  One that cannot even be dismissed by mere youth or unbridled exuberance.  So what if this Saturday’s game is coached by Tom Bradley, rather than Joe Paterno.  Is that your tragedy?  So what if you didn’t get to give Joe Paterno a standing ovation on Saturday?  You’ll get over it.  All of this certainly pales in comparison to being raped in Joe Paterno’s locker room.

The right to protest is part of our guarantee of free speech.  But so is our right to speak out against it.

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , ,
09 Nov 2011
5 Comments

More On Paterno

The latest news in the Penn State scandal is that Joe Paterno is not going to resign and that it is likely the Board of Trustees for Penn State will investigate (i.e. allow him to finish the season) before taking action.  And students in Penn State are out on his lawn supporting him.  Unreal.  A colossal mistake.

Imagine if Paterno said this on Monday evening:

Regardless of what I did or did not do in the past, and regardless of whether it was right or wrong, it is in the best interests of everyone for the focus to shift away from issues about Joe Paterno coaching.  Instead, the focus should be on #1 helping identify and counsel the victims; #2 ensuring justice is done; and #3 restoring the good name of Penn State.  In that order.  Joe Paterno simply is not on that list.

If my conduct is currently judged by anyone to have fallen short, I apologize for that now.  While my natural inclination is to try to fight to convince you of my side of the story, I cannot let myself be a distraction or obstacle to the most important goals being reached.  For those worried about my legacy, the legacy of Joe Paterno is not more important than the victims, justice, and Penn State.  And, if my legacy is going to be tarnished, it is going to be because of what I did or did not do several years ago and NOT because of what I did or did not do this week.  

For those talking about football right now, stop.  Realize that football is not the most important thing in life.  I certainly have never said it was.  And nothing that I have done in the past was based on putting Penn State football ahead of any other interests.  And, regardless of what you might think, Penn State can win football games without Joe Paterno.  So you need to stop worrying about football and re-focus on the three priorities here.  You can and should support the team on Saturday and in the future–those players have never been accused of doing anything wrong.  And although football games are low on the list of priorities, I am not going to allow controversy regarding me to interfere with them.

This is certainly not how I wanted my career to end.  But I have to acknowledge that I need to move on to a greater calling right now.  And that is using whatever is left of my good name to help the victims.  Even that might not be good enough in the end, but as a fighter I have to do what I can to win that battle.  Because that fight needs to start immediately, I hereby resign from my position with Penn State.

The reaction?  Of course, many would not be satisfied with that.  There are some who think Paterno should go to jail.

Most people, however, are in the middle and would feel that a self-imposed punishment at this juncture would be appropriate.  There would also be many people enraged that Paterno fell on the sword–even if it is a sword that he created unnecessarily many years ago.  And those people would not waver in their support for a quasi-martyr.

And if he truly did devote his efforts to helping these victims and other victims, his legacy would be restored over time.  America is always willing to forgive those that sincerely ask for it.  Eventually.

But that did not happen.

Instead, Joe Paterno is digging in–forcing the Board of Trustees to do something.  It is clear that Joe Paterno’s integrity is really just a myth.  Looking back, Joe Paterno was always looking out for Joe Paterno.  From there, it is not hard to extrapolate that he did not report this crime because it would have reflected poorly on him–hiring a pedophile and employing him for all those years.  Moving to less important matters, it becomes apparent that his continued  coaching is entirely about ensuring his place in the hierarchy of football coaches.  Even if it means being a detached coach in the press box without a headset.  As long as the win total grows.  The library donation was to immortalize his name, not to further education.  And so on.

Anything that happens to Joe Paterno’s legacy at this point is well deserved.   Needless to say, that legacy has peaked.  It is just a matter of how far he is going to let it fall before (finally) doing the right thing.

 



 


 


 

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged ,
07 Nov 2011
9 Comments

Joe Paterno Must Resign

By now, most everyone has read the news about the scandal at Penn State.  If you want to know more details, find a copy of the grand jury report.  No link here.  It is disturbing.  In any event, The Confidential has reached the conclusion that Paterno should resign immediately.

Paterno was probably not under a legal obligation to report the abuse that he did not witness.  His status as a non-supervisor seems to prevent same.  And it is apparent that there is at least some debate as to whether Paterno was morally obligated to call the police.  While the overwhelming majority of the comments are zealously advocating that he was morally obligated to do so, there is a reason why these incidents are under-reported to the point that states must pass laws to compel reporting.  For whatever reason, human beings are able to talk themselves out of reporting crimes that they should.  If Paterno deviated from his moral responsibility, his deviation is not unique.

What is unique is that Paterno is entrusted to run a major football program.  Running such a program requires him to police the interactions between his players and boosters.  It requires him to look out for the best interests of the 18- to 22-year-old men that parents entrust to him.  Most of all, it requires him to be engaged with the program. What this scandal demonstrates is that Paterno has not been engaged with the program for some time now.

It is unfathomable that Paterno allowed Sandusky to come anywhere near Paterno’s program.  There were reports of an incident of some nature occurring in 1998.  Even if Sandusky was cleared, one would think that Paterno would not want him anywhere near the program.

Regardless, even if Paterno’s first knowledge was truly 2002, that should have been enough.  Paterno should have wanted that guy to be 1,000,000 yards away from his campus, much less the weight room and football facilities.  The fact that Sandusky was able to continue to use these facilities at any point after 2002 suggests that Paterno either did not care that he was using the facilities or did not know.  If he did not care, then this means that abuse of a child is a non-issue for Paterno.  That’s bad.  If he did not know, then this means that Paterno is simply not capable of running the program.  How can he NOT know?

If Sandusky was paying Penn State players, would Paterno know?  He has to.  If Sandusky was convincing Penn State players to use steroids, would Paterno know?  He has to.  And if Paterno does not know that the guy he reported to his supervisor as abusing a child was not in his locker room, that’s a failure.  A football coach in today’s game has to know a lot more about his players than how fast they are and how well they block/catch/tackle.

Even worse, Paterno is routinely entrusted with youth.  While his players are not as young as Sandusky’s victims, they are still the young sons of parents.  Can parents rely on Paterno to make sound decisions about their kids’ well being?  If something happens with one of their kids, will Paterno take action or will he refer it upstream and forget.  As a parent, there is an easier solution than wondering, you tell your kid to go elsewhere.  This will hurt recruiting.

But this is not about recruiting.  This current issue is not about recruiting and wins.  It is about young men that will be permanently scarred by what happened in Paterno’s locker room.  It is about whether Paterno can be entrusted to run the program anymore.  Even if there is an argument to be made that Paterno did not have a duty to call the police, are we really to believe that he did not have a duty or obligation to follow-up to see what happened?  If not a duty, perhaps an innate curiosity to see “whatever happened to that investigation”?   But… nothing.  As noted above, either he did not know or he did not care.  Only two choices here.  Neither are acceptable.

That’s not the Paterno that is morally superior to anyone.  That’s a Paterno that is running a program from the press box, only without the headphones to connect him in.  And if he is not connected to the program, then he should not be running it.  The sad thing is that we are not talking about the future, but about the past.  His resignation is not due, it is overdue.

This does not mean that others do not deserve blame.  The perpetrator of these crimes naturally comes first.  And there may be facts that show others are more or less responsible than Paterno.  But long before the full story comes out (if ever), Paterno needs to step down and let someone else do the job.  The new coach may win fewer games and be less of a legend.  But, for now, Penn State will have to settle for a head coach who is engaged with the program on a daily basis.

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , ,

Post Navigation

Newer Entries →