Home CFB Big Ten Football Embracing The Fact That I Am a “Joe Bot”

Embracing The Fact That I Am a “Joe Bot”

1751

I know I may and will receive a lot of heat for this piece, but as the saying goes “The truth hurts”. What exactly is the “truth” and who will it “hurt” in this situation? The truth being that Joe Paterno was never
told of a sex act between Jerry Sandusky and a young boy and how it would and should hurt the media’s narrative that Paterno enabled Sandusky to sensationalize their agenda without any facts. Former Penn
State Quarterback and Wide Receivers Coach Mike McQueary, who at the time was a graduate assistant, said he heard slapping sounds in the shower of the Penn State locker room. He went to look and see what it was, and expected to see a man and a woman having sex, but what he ended up seeing was Jerry Sandusky and a 14 year old teenage boy. Just what exactly did McQueary see, and more importantly what did he tell Joe Paterno is the question. McQueary has made so many different interpretation of events that it is hard to know for sure what he saw that night. After all, one of the accounts dropped against Sandusky stemmed from the McQueary episode.

As for the media, they took the ball and ran with the story that Paterno was told by McQueary that he witnessed Sandusky performing “Anal Rape” and Paterno did everything to sweep it under the rug to
protect the image of the football program. I feel sorry for the naïve people that the media preys upon because they know the majority of people will not do any real ounce of research or even realize that the”truth” is whatever the media says it is. (Meaning if the Main Stream Media reports it then it must be true)

All Paterno was told by McQueary at the time back in 2001 was that there may have been horse playing or some sort of inappropriate behavior going on, but was never clear to Paterno as to what it was. Here is an interesting note, prior to telling Paterno, McQueary went and told his father and Dr. Dranov (who was the boss of McQueary’s father)  to tell them what he saw. Dr. Dranov who was a mandated reporter, would have had to immediately call Child Welfare if McQueary told them he saw a crime take place between Sandusky and the boy. Oddly though, McQueary’s father and Dr. Dranov instructed Mike to tell Paterno of the altercation instead of reporting to the authorities himself. (Which is what one would think he would do had he actually witnessed a sex act between Sandusky and a boy.)

Here is the first part that easily debunks any “cover-up” orchestrated by Paterno. When McQueary told Paterno of situation, would not he right then and there say “Okay Mike, listen to me. Tell no one and we will just keep this between us.” Except Paterno contacted his immediate supervisor and Athletic Director Tim Curley to look into the situation, and that right there is the second part that debunks any “cover up” by Paterno. If he, or anyone in general for that matter wanted to cover something up, would they honestly get someone else involved? No, of course not! Part of what makes a cover up successful is that the less people involved, the greater chance it remains covered.

Once Paterno reported it to his supervisor, there was nothing legally and dare I say “morally” more he could do as he only could go off hearsay as he never witnessed anything. Paterno followed up with
McQueary asking him if he felt the situation was handled properly to which he firmly told him that it was so. So where is this “big conspiracy”? If you are going to say “Paterno should have done more”
Please explain thoroughly in full detail of what “doing more” is. Also, some suggest McQueary blackmailed Paterno into a coverup in exchange for the vacant Wide Receiver Coaching Position after Kenny Jackson left for a coaching job with the Pittsburgh Steelers. Well that too is easily quick to debunk as McQueary did not become the Wide Receiver’s Coach until three years later in 2004. I hardly think if someone was being blackmailed that it would take them more than three years to come up with a proposition.

I know I will be called a “Joe Bot” by many and that I have blinders on. Probably even an “enabler”, but that honestly does not bother me. What actually bothers me is that I am somehow diminished because I am a “Joe Bot” when the facts actually support this supposedly “Joe Bot” position. The people who know the most about this case should not be discredited simply because they had admiration for a guy who deserved admiration and due process. I guess that makes me a
“Joe Bot”, which I will proudly acknowledge that! Also I would ironically like to point out that  Frank Fina, lead prosecutor in Sandusky case, is a “Joe Bot” as well as he even said on national television that he did not find any evidence of Paterno partaking in a cover up in anyway!

 

 

Follow me and SportsNinja!

KCSportsNinja Twitter: https://twitter.com/KCSportsNinja

KCSportsNinja Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/sportsninja

For more from my sports blog visit  http://noodleofnam.blogspot.com/

Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nams-Noodle-Sports-Blog-FB-Page/252192688235247

Twitter: https://twitter.com/NamsNoodleSport

Namsnoodle Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/230913293714043/

My name is Layton, but people on the internet call me "Nam" that stemmed from an old youtube account name I had where I made my username my last and first so it read "namrahnotyal". No one knew how to pronounce it so they just called me "Nam" for short. The noodle part just kind of came to my head when I remembered my friend one time saying to me after I was trying to advertise for myself locally for landscaping "that's using your noodle" So I figured "Nam" because most people called me that and "noodle" because it is another term/word used for brain.

SIMILAR ARTICLES

75

114