The Nittany Turkey

Primarily about Penn State football, this is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Search This Site

Enter keyword(s) below to search for relevant articles.

Home Archives for Anthony Lubrano

Mark Battaglia Speaks Out

Posted on Written by

Last week’s PSU BoT meeting in Hershey, attended by dozens of former Nittany Lions football lettermen, has faded to black, taking that long ride up the Hershey Highway into the fecal wasteland that has become a metaphor for the board’s (in)action. As expected, Trustee Kenneth Frazier defended “his” Freeh report while others — particularly Anthony Lubrano — decried it, representative of the intractable schism that has pervaded the Penn State community for sixteen months and counting. Of the comments from the peanut gallery, I thought Battaglia’s were the most incisive.

“I’m sorry, Mister Frazier. This ‘move on’ thing is not happening.”  —Mark Battaglia

On Thursday, Frazier had launched a tirade of defensively offensive remarks to board candidate Bill Cluck, an attorney, who mentioned to him that it appropriate to question the Freeh report because it has come under question from many directions and would not hold up legally in court. Frazier went off:

“I believe that we are entitled to look at the words and contemporaneous emails and other documents that draw the conclusions that we need to draw as a university. We are not subject to the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, and you’re a lawyer, so you can stop pretending that you think we are. We can take employment actions, we can take corrective actions without any need to resort to the so-called due process, reasonable doubt standard, and I don’t care if they are acquitted. And you know the difference. If you cared about that, you are one of the few people in this country that looks like you who actually believes the O.J. Simpson not guilty verdict was correct. The fact of the matter is, those documents say what they say, and no amount of hand waving will ever change what those documents say.”

So, on Friday, Frazier apologized for his untoward remarks, but held his ground in pooh-poohing the Paterno report:

“Because of its limited scope and intent, it does not provide a full or complete description of a historical record and it does not even comment on the recommendations in the Freeh report. As such, it provides little help to the university and decision makers going forward… Because it doesn’t even evaluate the conduct of individuals or many of the subjects addressed in the Freeh report other than with respect to Coach Paterno, it simply does not address any of the findings or documents in the Freeh report. The facts are the facts — and the contemporaneous emails and other documentation are among the most important evidence produced.

“We cannot put heads in the sand and pretend that children were not hurt or that the documents do not exist… When it comes to child sexual abuse, we, the adults in this community and every other community, must prevent the preventable. In order to do so, we must report the reportable. It is that simple and straightforward.

“It is crystal clear that the board cannot and should not reinvestigate the Freeh investigation. Any attempt to try and rewrite history will be damaging to Penn State’s effort to move past this horrible tragedy.”

Oh, boy! Here we go again with the “laser focus on the future of the university” crap. Let’s just sweep the who sordid mess under the rug and no one will notice the huge, ugly lump in the middle of the room! Yeah, the facts are the facts; however, the Freeh report was light on facts and heavy on inference. Frazier plays the vvvvvvvvicccccccccctimmmmmmmmmmms card in yet another simplistic attempt to preempt retorts, but that worked about as well with Lubrano as did the race card with Cluck. Said Lubrano:

“The one area we don’t focus much on is education, which is ironic given that this is an institution of higher learning. So what I would suggest to the board to take Louis Freeh up on his offer where he said in his July 12, 2012 press conference that he would come and meet with the students and the faculty and others to answer questions at the appropriate time. Well, it seems to me that this is a very appropriate time.

“Now I understand your point, Ken, that you don’t want to rewrite history. But I’m not sure the history is correct… This isn’t grandstanding. This is a serious matter. This is a very, very serious matter. Like the rest of you, I love this institution… I want to move forward. Absolutely, positively I want to move forward. But I can’t, in good conscience, move forward at this time. It’s just not possible for me.”

The inner circle of the BoT has been wanting us to “move forward” since Day One. In other words, we shouldn’t question their wisdom. They are obviously infallible.

But what’s this crap about rewriting history? What the hell do they think the Freeh report did? By misrepresenting facts and making spurious inferences, it sure as hell did its share of rewriting history. Now, this Frazier schmuck is defending the indefensible with bluster and platitudes. Lubrano is right. We cannot just move on, as Frazier and his colleagues would like us to.

I’ll tell you what I think. I think Frazier is incompetent and belligerently defensive, just like charlatans tend to be. The Freeh report was his baby and he won’t countenance any questions about his (and Freeh’s) superficial investigation and hastily derived conclusions, which were probably foregone before the report was even commissioned. I continue to think that the report essentially was an $8 million boondoggle whose outcome was pre-ordained by the inner circle. Whenever the report is questioned, the vvvvvvvvicccccctimmmmmmmms card is played and we’re told that we must “move forward.” The questions are never answered. Nevertheless, given that the loudly incompetent Frazier as the front man for the whole fandango, sooner or later someone or something is going to crack, and this turkey wants to be around when the shit hits the fan!

It is interesting that with the election forthcoming, the BoT is considering proposals to reduce the size of the board, to put gags on members, and be empowered to kick people off the board who speak out. Here is the exact wording of the proposal that would restrict the free speech of board members:

“It is expected that each Trustee will… Speak openly, freely and candidly within the Board and publicly support decisions reached by the Board; it being recognized and understood that once the Board of Trustees, as the governing body of the University, makes a decision, it can be counterproductive and potentially damaging to the University for individual Trustees to publicly criticize or attempt to subvert such decision…”

Hellllllllooooooooo! If Washington ran that way, it would be Pyongyang! Communist stifling of free speech! Toe the party line… or else! WTF? Is this America?

What’s next? Jailing public critics like me for speaking up? Holy crap, I better check out the airfare to Siberia! I’ll volunteer for the gulag before the PSU BoT Thought Police come knocking on my Turkey Coop door. I can’t even imagine the cruel and unusual punishment that would await me. Horrors!

Yeah, that’s a bit of an overreaction, but you get my point. Why in the hell should trustees who dissent just roll over and play dead? We know how the BoT works — that the elected members have little power to overcome the decisions made by the inner circle. So now, they want to nullify the elected members by first reducing their numbers, then gagging them, and then threatening them that they’ll be kicked off the board if they open their mouths? Who’d they learn that from, Mark Emmert?

I repeat: WTF!!?!?!

I’m sorry about the digression, but that whole thing pisses me off. Back to the topic at hand.

As I mentioned at the top of this tirade, Mark Battaglia made some comments that I think are worth reading:

“Sadly, to date, there’s only one man who has admitted that with the benefit of hindsight that he wished he would have done more. You see Joe Paterno held us to a higher standard as players. In the classroom, in our lives, on the football field. And we’re here today to hold you, the Board, to a higher standard. More specifically, those who have already been held to a higher standard because they played for Joe Paterno or they had brothers or nephews who played for Joe Paterno. They knew Joe Paterno like we knew Joe Paterno.

“In the huddle, when the game is on the line, they looked in his eyes, they saw the man, they knew the man. And yet, they wouldn’t take his call. They wouldn’t make a call. They sat around silently. Worse yet, maybe they led the effort to fire Joe. Why? Was it personal? Did they let a personal issue lead to a potentially $100 million debacle?

“Joe always said ‘you’re never as good as you think you are when you win and you’re never as bad as you think you are when you lose.’ Good news here is that we are losing, we didn’t lose, but we are losing the battle. We need to change the strategy. We need the leadership from those very people who played for Joe to lead us out of this thing by changing. Paint yourself in the corner with this Freeh report. I’m sorry Mr. Frazier… This ‘move on’ thing is not happening. The alumni are not buying it. So Joe said ‘you have to believe in your heart that you are destined to do great things.’ You can do that. There’s still time. There are 500,000 alumni out there hoping and praying that you accept the challenge.”

“This ‘move on’ thing is not happening!” Tell it just like it is, Mark! I love it!

Finally, I’ll share a video that expresses my wishes quite well.

Who will be our George Foreman?

Where’s This Going?

Posted on Written by

I’ve read the comments on the Freeh report by Spanier’s attorneys and this Turkey is here with his ever ready opinions. So, without further ado, let’s go opining.

I don’t see a lot of particularly startling revelations. The report merely captured what we’ve been seeing in other analyses and used some strong language to rebut specific findings and conclusions.

We don’t yet know what Spanier will say;  that will come out later today. It’s pretty predictable, though, now that we know what his mouthpieces have written and what he said in the interview with The New Yorker. He’ll say that the 1998 investigation was dismissed by authorities, and later, in 2001, no one mentioned anything sexual. So, barring any off the wall happenings during the ABC interview — which would have leaked out by now — we’re going to hear a reiteration of the same old mantra from the ex-president.

Where does that leave us?

I have to say that if a majority of the board of trustees wanted to put this behind us last week, they’re not going to be swayed by a couple of Philadelphia lawyers and Spanier, whom they probably hoped would just fade away with his Washington consulting job for Homeland Security. (I’d still like to know who arranged that gig for GS — I think it would fill in some blanks.)

The BoT will just stick to its oft stated position of wanting to put the whole thing in the past and keep their Peetzian “laser focus” on the future. They have the votes to do that even in the face of withering excoriation and regardless of what dissenters such as trustees Lubrano and Clemens have to say. After all, the University accepted the Freeh report without question.

Well, how about the NCAA and its sanctions?

Nah, forget it. Emmert has a laser of its own, and it is aimed away from Penn State now. I believe that the NCAA position will continue to be that although the Freeh report contains factual inaccuracies and faulty conclusions, there is nevertheless sufficient “evidence” to prove the basic allegation of lack of institutional oversight. If the pressure on the NCAA is amped up, then Emmert will fall back on the trump card: the children. With the victim card up its sleeve, the NCAA won’t be losing any sleep over this.

What about the vacation of 111 wins?

This Turkey thinks the NCAA can use that as another bargaining chip but only in the direst of circumstances, if the organization is backed up against the wall by negative sentiment from its members and the public. Nevertheless, this was a purely vindictive penalty that is now naked and exposed for what it is. The punishment makes no sense at all given that the 1998 incident was dismissed by authorities. If the NCAA wants to launch a pre-emptive strike, this would be the nuke to hurl. Giving Paterno and his players back their victories would assuage the bitterness of lots of people — for a while.

What about Spanier himself? What does this do for him?

It covers his ass. He might want to work again for some university, but at the very least he wants to avoid prosecution and clear his name.

That having been said, I think this could go even farther than a mere ass shroud. Spanier’s formal rebuttal of the Freeh report appears to this Turkey to be laying the groundwork for a dubious dismissal and defamation suit against Penn State and possibly Freeh, as will his professing utter and complete innocence to a national audience on ABC tonight. In Penn State’s own “Night of the Long Knives,” Spanier and Paterno were summarily relieved of their duties based on a document with more holes in it than all the cheese in Switzerland. Just mull that one over for a little bit.

Just my opinions, folks. I’m sure you have some yourselves. Please let us hear them!

Bully!

Posted on Written by

In a recent interview, alumni elected Penn State trustee Anthony Lubrano called the NCAA collectively a bully, and followed with, “the only way to deal with a bully is head on.” Lubrano is incontrovertibly correct, and he summed up what I have been thinking ever since President Rod Erickson and the Penn State Board of Trustees capitulated to the NCAA’s draconian sanctions.

No fight at all? Erickson and those trustees who support him, an overwhelming majority of the 32-member board, have continued to fall back on the excuse that the alternative to the NCAA sanctions would have been much worse, that the offer of the sanctions was non-negotiable, and that the best thing for the university was to take its lumps and move forward in order to get the Sandusky mess behind us and live for a better day ahead.

But it’s liable to get worse before it gets better. How much worse is anybody’s guess. For it is an uneasy peace when one chooses to appease a bully.

Ask Neville Chamberlain’s ghost. The British Prime Minister thought that it was necessary to appease Hitler to achieve “peace in our time.” At the Munich Conference of 1938, Chamberlain traded part of Czechoslovakia for a promise that the Germans and Brits would go away happy and European life would return to normal with the major threat having been appeased. But a bully will always be a bully. Hitler ignored the non-aggression pact, invading Poland and starting World War II.

If there’s a lesson to be gleaned from this historical snippet it’s that when one shows weakness to a bully, he better have eyes in the back of his head, for there will always be threats lurking in the shadows. Other bullies tend to take notice that there’s a weakling who is ripe for the taking and won’t offer much resistance. A show of bluster is all that is needed to get him to give up his lunch money. If there’s any resistance, give him a black eye and take the money. He won’t fight back.

And so it appears that Penn State has unwittingly, masochistically invited others besides the NCAA to come take its lunch money — lots of it.

Immediately following NCAA President Mark Emmert’s announcement of sanctions against Penn State, the Big Ten Conference jumped into the fray, augmenting the football program’s woes by imposing additional sanctions. Then, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, the academic accreditation body, declared Penn State “in jeopardy” of losing its accreditation. Lurking in the shadows are the Clery Act investigation by the US Department of Education, perhaps dozens of civil lawsuits from Sandusky’s victims and their families, perjury trials for Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, potential felony prosecution of former President Graham Spanier, and who knows what else? It is easy to be paranoid when the knives continue to rain down. And through it all, the media have been slamming Penn State — because it’s easy.

Accepting the NCAA sanctions without a peep also validated the conclusions of the Freeh report, which Emmert used as the basis for his “deal”. Instead of conducting a proper, NCAA-led investigation, Emmert and his henchmen chose to wave the Freeh report at Erickson to see if he’d cave in. Throw in a couple of threats of rocks thrown through the windows of Old Main, killing off the football program, and assorted other sundry imperilments, and here’s the deal: take it or leave it. An offer you can’t refuse. And by the way, no leaks. Keep your mouth shut. Omerta. Or else!

That opened the door to everyone else to use the strong language of the Freeh report to support their cases against Penn State, against which they could conclude they would receive little resistance.

Of course, it is the NCAA, not a single university, that is culpable for transforming academic institutions into football factories. The opportunity was ripe for the NCAA to make Penn State a target in order to take the bulls-eye off their own backs. The NCAA must discipline member schools regularly for this reason. We’ll see how unhypocritical they are with the way they handle UNC, but let me not digress.

That Erickson and his good ole boys and girls on the board chose to accept the Freeh report’s conclusions without question is another facilitating factor for the bullies out there. Of course the BoT paid big bucks for the former FBI director’s report, reportedly $6.5 million, so why question it? It was bought and paid for, a ready excuse not to pursue any issues related to its findings. By virtue of the ivory tower’s acceptance of not only the report, but also the bullies’ use of it to justify their punishments, it has essentially become a declaration of guilt: we did it, we did it all, and we’ll pay the price to atone for it, amen.

However, several interested bystanders who have chosen to ignore the machinations in Old Main have found significant flaws in the Freeh report. Its description of the supposedly corrupt football culture at Penn State is certainly subjective, yet it is the cornerstone for the NCAA’s and others’ case against the university. How can a climate in which academic issues had repeatedly caused suspensions of big-name players be described as deficient academically? How could a top football program with a top of the heap graduation rate be described as corrupt. Those Freeh report words appear to be the cart that drags the horse: as if Freeh conducted the investigation with the object being to prove the notion of a corrupt football culture, instead of deriving that from his findings.

Does the board have something to hide? Why are they not questioning these flaws in the Freeh report? Is there a bigger scandal they’re attempting to keep buried beneath the troubled turf of this one? Better that we find out about it sooner than later, before the bullies snatch more lunch money.

It will come out in the wash. It cannot be be swept under the rug. Thanks to inquisitive, cynical trustees like Lubrano, Joel Myers, and Ryan McCombie, along with former Penn State players, the Paterno family, and investigative reporters such as Sara Ganim, the truth will eventually be revealed. When it does, a lot of people in higher places than Old Main will get hurt. But history has shown that the lust for power leads to serious risk taking to cling to power.

Meanwhile, the board will keep trying to back itself into a corner, ostensibly maintaining a “laser focus” on the future. The bullies will keep on bullying, and the sheep will continue to graze while maintaining their laser focus. Don’t be surprised if one day that damn laser starts focusing on them.