Blog Entry

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

Posted on: November 18, 2011 12:59 am
Edited on: November 18, 2011 2:05 am
 
By Gary Parrish

This is what the Jerry Sandusky case has done.

It's inspired people to come forward. To speak out against molestation. To speak up against monsters who prey on young people, abuse them sexually and scar them for life. And if that's the lasting effect of this ongoing scandal at Penn State, great. Every tragedy needs a silver lining. Perhaps that's the one that'll come from this -- previously silent victims finding the courage to speak.

But what if it also brings liars forward?

And good men down?

That's all I can think about as I sit here late Thursday unsure of what to make of the allegations against Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine. A former Orange ball boy and a relative have both told Syracuse police that Fine molested them when they were teenagers, but here's the problem: One of the alleged victims, Bobby Davis, who is now 39, told this story to ESPN and the Syracuse Post-Standard in 2003, but neither media outlet could corroborate the allegations against Fine. The University investigated the allegations years ago, too; it also found no one to corroborate. Consequently, the stories never ran and Fine's career continued uninterrupted.

So what changed between now and then?

Mike Lang came forward.

He's Davis' stepbrother.

He's now 45.

It could be that watching the Penn State scandal unfold has given Lang the courage to speak out just like his stepbrother spoke out years ago. Or it could be nothing more than a publicity stunt and cash-grab, which is what Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim suggested late Thursday.

Me?

I have no idea.

But this is scary stuff regardless of how it goes.

If the allegations are true, my god, we've got another sexual abuse scandal within the athletic department of another institution of higher learning. That's sickening. But if the allegations are false, a 35-year assistant's reputation has been wrongly ruined forever. This bell, as they say, cannot be unrung. Bernie Fine is now, in the public's mind, Jerry Sandusky 2.0 even though he has, at this point, merely been accused by two men whom Boeheim called "liars." That's way different than being charged by a grand jury after years and years of testimony, but it won't slow the headlines, and it won't keep Fine off television, and it didn't prevent him from being placed on administrative leave late Thursday.

Again, I don't know where this story is going.

I'm not sure anybody does.

But this is what the Jerry Sandusky case has done.

And though that could be a good thing, it could also be really, really bad.
Comments

Since: Jul 23, 2008
Posted on: November 20, 2011 12:07 pm
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

Mark schwarz will soon be unemployeed over this. Basically what he did was after the Penn St scandle, he thought he could strike while the iron was hot and called this accuser back up that he spoke with years ago to try and see if anyone else will colabarate the story now, well let me call my brother and see, and bam!   Mark Schwarz just found a couple crack heads he could give a few bucks to to try and make a name for himself ( if you think he already has a name for himself check out his wikipedia page, let me save you time, there isn't one ), and instead it will take him down, and hopfully this cost ESPN a boat load as well for allowing it to happen.



Since: Aug 30, 2006
Posted on: November 20, 2011 3:03 am
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

CATMANBLUE...Don't embarass Big Blue Nation with a stupid comment like you posted!



Since: Nov 28, 2007
Posted on: November 20, 2011 1:13 am
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

Jerry Sandusky.....check. Catching monsters....check. Ruining peoples lives......check. But I've got a question.

What's the difference between "those" that come forward with alleged allegations of "abuse" against Bernie Fine, for whatever reason be it the truth or for as Boeheim suggested, money, and any reporter that writes an article without sufficent evidence to support his/her claims?

Whether those claims be like those above or any other numerous things that can be said about another person that could destroy their career, life, etc., I fail to see the difference. If you're reporting information that isn't true, or based upon unsubstantiated claims then it's the same damn thing.

Hey Gary. Remember that little article you wrote on Anthony Davis a few months ago? Without proof right? For hits right? In what interest was that? For the truth......I doubt it. Pot meet kettle. Hope you read that and it sticks in your crawl when you look in the mirror every morning. It should.

Because you're just as wrong for writing that as those that did or said what they have against Fine(if it isn't true) and now you want to develop a moral. Too late bud.



Since: Sep 15, 2010
Posted on: November 19, 2011 8:16 pm
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

I see a lot of similarities between the Sandusky case and the Duke lacrosse case
I am glad to see you learned how to misquote people and only take part of what the statement said to twist it into something esle.  What I said was "I see a lot of similarities between the Sandusky case and the Duke lacrosse case; especially since the court of public opinion was quick to convict based solely on grand jury testimony instead of waiting for all the facts to come out before rendering a verdict."  I do not see in that statement where I am comparing the "facts" of both cases, so I am not sure how you make that assumption.  What that statement means, since you have made a incorrect assumption, is if you compare the media's pre-criminal trial coverage, the media's pre-criminal trial verdict, and the court of public opinion's pre-criminal trial verdict then you would see they are very similar.  The reason is because it does not make for very good ratings/sales to remain neutral when covering the story.

There are ZERO similarities between the two cases.
There are similiarities with respect to the court of public opinion.  In the Duke case, the court of public opinion rushed to convict the players of rape based solely on the grand jury testimony.  The last time I have checked there have no criminal or civil trials yet, so no one can say all the facts in this case have been made public.  If the court of public opinion had its way in the Duke case then the players would have been convicted of rape.  Instead they were found innocent because the accuser made a false accusation.  I am not saying Sandusky will be found guilty, or Gary Schultz and/or Tim Curley found guilty of perjury, or Penn St and/or Joe Paterno found guilty in civil trials (since you have already misquoted me once), but until all the facts are presented then no one can render any verdict on anyone involved in this case. 

As far as the perjury trials go, it is very possible that Paterno and McQueary could even end up being charged with perjury when it is all said and done.  McQueary creditability took a hit this week when he said in an email that he went to the police even though the Penn St police and State College police show no record of it.

I'll give you a pass, though, you're a Virginia Tech fan.  You know about players raping people and not making a big deal out of it, ie Marcus Vick.  Your campus also harbored a mental patient, until he shot up your school, so indeed, I can see why you would think the way you do.
I will give you a pass for being an idiot for making assumptions about me when you don't even know me.  To make a generalized statement like that about VT fans, students, alumni, and administration shows a serious lack of judgment on your part. 



Since: Jan 2, 2010
Posted on: November 19, 2011 7:58 pm
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

Syraexcuse sucks  Oops !



Since: Mar 25, 2009
Posted on: November 19, 2011 4:07 pm
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

"I see a lot of similarities between the Sandusky case and the Duke lacrosse case."

Really?!  Which of the childern Sandusky allegedly raped was high on coke and passed out in the bathroom and didn't do the job they were hired to do?  That's right, the boys were 10 years old, they weren't working, and infact, were entrusting Sandusky with their care.

Who witnessed a rape taking place in the Duke case?  Oh, that's right, a witness in the Sandusky case actually saw a crime being comitted.

Which DA in the Sandusky case is up for re-election and went after the case to garner favor with the local community?  That's right, the original DA in the Sandusky case is missing, presumed dead, without a body found.

What case had people accused of raping somebody and they actually had video proof at a bank showing they were at an ATM at the time of the incident.

Which case had "rich white guys taking advantage of an innocent balck girl.  This must be a race crime, too" attached to it?

There are ZERO similarities between the two cases.  Anybody who thought, or still thinks, the Duke players did anything illegal (granted, they did something dumb) is an idiot, is jealous of people who can attend Duke, or believes all men are predators, and should be punished just for being a man (and these guys were white and the accuser was black, so that's another strike against them), an Occupy Wall Street participant, or all four.

Question, can you name the witness who has been accused of perjury?  the ones accused of perjury are Penn State administrators.  I'll give you a pass, though, you're a Virginia Tech fan.  You know about players raping people and not making a big deal out of it, ie Marcus Vick.  Your campus also harbored a mental patient, until he shot up your school, so indeed, I can see why you would think the way you do.Laughing



Since: Jul 12, 2010
Posted on: November 19, 2011 3:32 pm
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

This was in response to  who said at the end of his/her comment:

"Now wouldn't that be something: if ESPN encouraged the silence in 2003 only to be a major partaker in the media that admonishes Joe Paterno for not doing more."



Since: Jul 12, 2010
Posted on: November 19, 2011 3:29 pm
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

I don't think you can admonish a media organization for not publishing a story. In fact, I think you have to give ESPN credit for trying to corraborate the facts before running any part of the story they might have had back in 2003. You'd have to recognize that they were acting in a responsible, journalistic manner. And that's a professional credo that many, in this day and age, who have a computer, write a blog and consider themselves journalists, fail to realize.

I also think you have your timeline on the bashing of Paterno is a bit muddled. When the story first broke a few weeks ago, it was made clear that Paterno was not under investigation. Once the grand jury report was issued and his role (or lack thereof) in the Sandusky situation became apparent, that's when calls for his resignation surfaced.



Since: Oct 1, 2009
Posted on: November 19, 2011 9:18 am
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

Davis spoke to ESPN in 2003?  2003??  Did ESPN or the ESPN reporter go to the police???  Shouldn't everyone associated with ESPN at that time be fired or at least relieved of their duties?  Shouldn't ESPN be taken off the air for not reporting child molestation to the police?? 

I love the people comparing this to Penn St.  Joe Pa KNEW about a 10 year old getting raped in the shower and covered it up.  I live in the Syracuse area and am familiar with the area this guy is from, he lives in Bridgeport.  Bridgeport is the home of Pabst Blue Ribbon and aluminum housing.   Mike Mcqueary had a lot more credibility than two scumbags from Bridgeport and Joe brushed it aside.  Did I mention the scumbag from Bridgeport said he was molested until 27?  Can you be molested then or are you gay?



Since: Dec 5, 2006
Posted on: November 19, 2011 12:29 am
 

Did we catch another monster or ruin a good name?

This is a gut check. Happens that there are two scandals brewing at once. Coach Boeheim might know something the public does not know. Or he might want to sweep this under the rug since he has employed an assistant for 8 years after hearing the first allegation.
GOMIZZOU Wrote:
Or it may be that the claims are false.  Tell me, why wouldn't you include that option with the other two?  Does your personal experience cloud your ability to believe that sometimes people are falsely accused?
You misread my words. When I said Coach Boeheim might know something the pubic might not know I meant of an exculpatory nature which can prove Fine innocent. Yes, indeed this is an option. My personal experience merely helps me to know how very hard it is to go public with such an accusation. That does not cloud the possibility that it is false.

I will point out again how much I respect coach Boeheim. But nobody can know where another person is every minute over six or more years involved. I hope the truth comes out in a convincing fashion. This should not hang unresolved for coach Fine and the alleged victims. It already has for far too long.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com