So did Bradley lie, or did he say "an assistant" without naming anyone and Mcquery assumed in was Schiano? As far as I know this was all 3rd hand in the testimony and GS never gave a deposition.
OT: Schiano Knew Too
- Thread starter mikemarc1
- Start date
So now Bradley had to respond to WHY he told Mcqueary Schiano told him...
And if he denies that later, Mcqueary has to respond why he made it up. Much more to come!
The weird thing to me is that almost any football player I know(and these coaches were players themselves) would have pummeled this man to bits before they even had time to think about who it was and the consequences. You see a boy or girl or woman for that matter being molested, you always react first and think later. Who the living F just slinks away and then only reports it? You see it happening- stop it right then and there
None of my comments indicated what Schiano knew or did not know. I don't really care. He does not work at Rutgers any more. It is Ohio State's problem now. I don't want blood from him.
I want Rutgers to be above the fray. And I don't want there to be any accommodation or soft-pedaling because a coach has a winning record or is a star.
And yes, if I was a guy in my 20's and saw a man raping a boy in the shower at work, I would have 1. acted to stop it immediately, regardless of the repercussions and 2. if my employer did not back me up, I would have quit in disgust. How hard is that to do? You have your word, the boy's word against a guy raping the boy in the shower.
If Schiano saw or heard something, then he should have reported it to Paterno. If Paterno did nothing, then Schiano should have reported it to the police. If those things didn't happen, then Schiano screwed up big time and kids got raped because of it.
But right now, all I see is a statement made in a deposition by McQueary who claims he was told something about Schiano by Bradley. Who knows if McQueary is telling the truth? Who knows if Bradley was telling him the truth? Who knows if somebody got it mixed up back then?
In my experience, all kinds of stuff is said that turns out later not to be true. Based on the extremely limited evidence, I'm not yet ready to condemn Schiano. Let's see what Schiano says. Let's see what Bradley says.
But right now, all I see is a statement made in a deposition by McQueary who claims he was told something about Schiano by Bradley. Who knows if McQueary is telling the truth? Who knows if Bradley was telling him the truth? Who knows if somebody got it mixed up back then?
In my experience, all kinds of stuff is said that turns out later not to be true. Based on the extremely limited evidence, I'm not yet ready to condemn Schiano. Let's see what Schiano says. Let's see what Bradley says.
He could sue Bradley, maybe. But what cause does he have to sue McQueary? All McQueary did was report what Bradley told him.
Or it could be miscommunication like the old telephone experiment. MM could have misunderstood Bradley, maybe GS name was neve directly mentioned and MM assumed it was GS. With GS denying it now we need to hear from Bradley.
Maybe McQueary actually did make it up. Unless someone else comes forward and corroborates things, there's no way to prove (or disprove) the veracity of his story.
You just sue. If not your career is ruined. Your not trying to win case. Trying to change public opinion. If it costs you 25-50k in legal fees to save your reputation so be it.
True. And if you're probing to boundaries of the tale, there's every reason for McQueary to make up the conversation with Bradley. After all, absent the claim that other people prior to him had witnessed Sandusky's behavior, then he's still just the little ginger c*nt who witnessed a child rape and didn't do anything about it except tell his boss.
This happens far more often than I think people account for. Did it happen here? Who knows. I would guess we will never find out.
Schiano's problem now is that it no longer even matters if he knew or not. Based on the response we can see right here in this thread, a majority of people are going to consider him guilty simply because McQueary said that Bradley said so.
I don't know why people are buying this guy story. There no doubt that Sandusky molested kids. However this guy story makes no sense.
Child molesters have a MO and rarely deviate from that. All the other victims have said that Sandusky spent long periods of time grooming his victims. Essentially winning their trust and then progressing from horse play. This victim is claiming Sandusky penetrated him in the middle of the shower with other coaches and campers in the room? He also claims he didn't know who Sandusky was. He also claims that he told several coaches, fellow campers who were there in the shower however no one there could collaborate his story. He said he didn't know who the coaches were but years later is able to identify them. He told all these people at camp but not a single person after? He was able to walk up directly to Paterno and tell him the story but not able to walk up to his own coaches or parents. He finally came out when Penn State was offering settlements to the victims. It just doesn't add up. I have no doubt that Penn State and Paterno are liable for the abuse but this guy story makes no sense.
A lot to read through, and I've picked a few comments to respond to. I am interested to see what comes out today and over the next few days.
By the way, very, very easy to pick out the Schiano haters on this thread.
By the way, very, very easy to pick out the Schiano haters on this thread.
No, he should definitely be given the benefit of the doubt. This is like a game of telephone, Person X told Person Y told Person Z told Person P told......
Exactly. I'm sure there were rumors floating around, in those circles there always are. But he needs to make a statement.
And that's another thing. In this day and age it is very easy to judge by today's standards. But try to look at it from the standpoint of that time period. I'm sure more than one person, young in their career, has encountered something which raised the quandary of pursuing something versus self-preservation.
Hater #1. Reality is that if we had a wildly successful coach, and it came out that he had seriously dirty laundry in his closet, I (and most likely many, many others) would want him crucified and gone. And not in that order.
Hopefully the allegations are allowed to be addressed and examined before the lynch mob springs into action.
There are some seriously delusional people over there, who view all of this as one big conspiracy to tarnish Saint Joe's image.
I don't know much about McQueary other than that he saw something and didn't do enough about it.
But we saw plenty of Schiano's character on display over the years. He does not strike me as someone who would have seen something and done nothing. And I don't even particularly like Schiano and was happy enough to see him go.
Schiano has made a statement denying any knowledge. It appears Bradley might have mentioned it happened in 1976 with another assistant coach and nothing was done to keep McQuery quiet.
Some more you should know about McQueary
Deadspin
McQueary Gambling Allegations Put 19-Year-Old Game In New Light
Don't know the truth, but I don't feel suggesting McQueary lied is something that I think is right.
I hope with all my heart Greg didn't have a clue what type of scumbag Sandusky was and still is.
I even hope it can be said Schiano might have heard rumors but dismissed them because he didn't know and gave the pervert the benefit of doubt
Right now Schiano's reputation is taking a big hit and just saying : “I never saw any abuse, nor had reason to suspect any abuse, during my time at Penn State.” isn't going to stop the accusation of knowing from following him the rest of his coaching career.
Greg must prove , by doing an in depth interview covering the issue of his knowing or not, he didn't know and never saw anything to make him suspect Sandusky was a child molester.
I have defended Greg Schiano from those who attack him nitpicking every so called fault he is/was supposed to have, but on this issue can only say I hope those claiming Schiano knew are proven wrong.
Even I have my doubts and can't blindly proclaim him innocent , only can say : I hope he's innocent.
I think these are not comparable or equivalent situations.
Though I DO believe Simpson was guilty - there was at least SOME reasonable doubt.
There is NO reasonable doubt that Paterno did indeed know something, and in fact very clearly he knew MUCH. Paterno knew, knew a lot, and knew it for years - maybe even decades.
I agree that Schiano was always a man of character here. Yet, perhaps that character was not forged until he was coaching for a numbers of year, i.e., after this alleged incident, or maybe even as a result of this entire incident.
I have no way of knowing if he's innocent or guilty. But right now, there's more than reasonable doubt, IMO.
Never even a rumor of one, so that's a mute point as far as I'm concerned.
Him being part (or not) of Penn St covering up for Sandusky is the issue being discussed.
Even when Greg was at the peak of his popularity at RU the culture surrounding his football program was one that he couldn't control enough to stop the slightest hint of impropriety from going to the media and being put in the Star Ledger and other media outlets.
That's possible too. He might have known about the whole thing.
But I feel no particular compulsion to leap to conclusions about it without more evidence.
And there is this small possibility. Maybe, just maybe Schiano tried to do something about what he saw, he got shut down by the cult and the locals, and he just chose to leave. Doubtful scenario, but until someone knows all the facts and everything that transpired, it is not fair to cast aspersions on Schiano. It is also possible that McQueary lied in his testimony or his memory of of the the person was incorrect. Seems kind of odd that Bradley would have 2 people come to him seeing the same thing (Sandusky raping a boy in the shower) and Bradley did nothing. But then again, if it was cult, maybe it is not that odd.
Doesn't make McQueary look good. But again, there's a lot of unsubstantiated rumor in that article. Then again, I think the fact that he probably threw a TD pass that he wasn't supposed to throw says enough about his character - even without any gambling connection.
His statement to the media that is making the Twitter rounds is that he knew nothing, saw nothing, suspected nothing.
And Schiano and Bradley could agree here that they do not remember McQueary's version of events, and that puts an end to it, unless there is a reason to take Schiano or Bradley's deposition. Very easy to make McQueary look like he did not remember correctly or was covering for someone else. What a mess.
Schiano. Don't think we've heard from Bradley yet, but I would suspect that he and Schiano have compared notes. It makes sense, as I said in a previous post - McQueary can't prove that anybody ever said anything to him, so there's no reason to not deny everything.
I just wonder how it's possible that Schiano and Bradley are just learning about this now. Wouldn't they have found out soon after the deposition was given? Somebody would've followed up back then.
It stretched the imagination before that Schiano would know nothing of the serial rapist he worked for raping kids on the campus he was employed at for the 5 years he worked for him. Today just puts the nail in the coffin for me when it comes to Schiano.
