Something far more sinister than the conservative Amish has recently been associated with the Pennsylvania exurbs between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. And I do not think it will increase the tourist traffic.

I see a direct link between the Kids for Cash scandal, the Penn State abuse in a boy's camp and the homophobia best represented by former senator Rick Santorum's "Controversy Regarding Homosexuality"; two of which have earned their very own wiki entries; and the third is sure to come.

In a homophobic environment it is easier for both unsuspected "straight" and closeted "gay" men(yes, I regard Mr. Sandusky as gay no matter how deeply he has lived in the closet) to abuse boys.

We have to stop trying to dissociate such miscreants from their demonstrated sexual orientation or deficiencies. And we can not go on assuming that men in authority are always more trustworthy than openly gay men concerning the treatment of young boys.

Ya know I really hadn't studied this story thoroughly until yesterday. After now reading through grand jury transcripts, hearing the full timeline of the allegations, and hearing the steps that were and WERE NOT taken as a result of this really has me sick to my stomach. I applaud reporters who have been on air discussing this story in their ability to be objective and keep their composure. Yes, thats part of the job of a journalist, especially considering it is still an active investigation, but I would completely understand one who totally just lost it for a minute.

The bottom line here is that keeping the integrity of PSU's football program intact was more important than ensuring the safety of children....CHILDREN. This graduate assistant (28 years old graduate assistant I might add) who saw Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a 10 YEAR OLD BOY (approx age) decided his course of action was to call his f*cking father. I was watching Mike and Mike on ESPN this morning and totally was there with Mike Golic's sentiments on this. STOP THE ACT!!!! Run in that damn shower and get that kid out of there. People are trying to make excuses for this guy about the fact that his new career would've been ruined and blah blah blah. Sorry. I just can't fathom seeing a 60 year old man raping or having some kind of inappropriate sexual content with a 10 year old boy and doing nothing. Hell...even if there was nothing going on. What is a 60 year old man doing in a shower with a 10 year old boy on the Penn State Campus. That is enough for me to immediately call the police. The grad asst called his father and then went to Paterno the next day.

As for Joe Pa this tarnishes his legacy forever as far as I'm concerned. While he did what was right legally, the fact that he knew of more than one allegation of Sandusky involved in his McNasty behavior, knew that he still had access around children, and did not call police or follow up leaves one to question where his morals and loyalty lie. Yes, the person he went to also controls the campus police, but f*ck campus police in this situation. The Pennsylvania State Police should've been called. I know its easy to sit back and criticize in hindsight but one thing I know for 1000% fact is that I would've ran in there and grabbed that child out of the shower. This whole thing just has me so angry and sad for the victims knowing that had people taken more direct action that there could've been fewer victims.

Apparently the University of Maryland dodged a bullet when Jerry Sandusky "spurned opportunities for head coaching positions, including one with the University of Maryland in 1991, in the hope of succeeding Paterno as head coach at Penn State".

I seriously doubt the Terps would have done due diligence had he expressed interest in the job.

Still this writer goes off like the sanctimonious convicted murderer in prison who decides to kill the pedophile in the next cell.

If you don't face the fundamental problem of homophobia then this kind of thing will continue.

As Charles Barkley was quoted in an earlier column by the same author, when speaking of possible sexual activity by gay pros in intimacy with others It is only in situations of authority over another or strength over weakness that sexual abuse occurs. It is the choice to live in the closet and with sexual addiction that causes the dysfunctional behaviour.

But this isn't really about being gay, in the closet, or whatever. Rape is rape. It is using sex as a tool to control. It's not about the act, it's about the control. I dislike seeing it compared to homosexual sex...the actions may be the same, but the reasons are not. I still cannot fathom how any human being could walk by a man raping a boy and not say anything or do anything. That boy had to be crying out in pain. How in the world could any human being ignore something like that? Then, top it off by ignoring it for YEARS while new victims are violated. This whole story is just disgusting.

I was clear that this is sexual abuse. But if we just stop there we don't solve a serious problem. The causes are important.

Two thousand kids rioting at the dismissal of JoePa tells us just how powerful his authority was over those kids. It was the same for his one-time designated successor Jerry Sandusky, even if one of the formerly molested guys now says they just thought Jerry was "wierd".

He was more than wierd. He was, and is, gay; and was closeted. An openly gay Sandusky would not have been likely to be in the position to do the harm he did; or would not have had the need for that sort of perverted sexual behavior.

While Jerry may possibly be gay, what is clear is that he is a pedophile. This is not a scandal about gay sex, it is a story about an pedophile molesting young boys. Gay men are attracted to adult men. Straight men are attracted to adult women. Pedophiles are attracted to children.

Actually pedophile is someone who's attracted to "young" children. I don't support Sandusky in any way but it's important to be clear about what's being discussed and attraction to 4 year old kids and 12 year old kids are two totally different things. It wasn't that long ago that those 12 and 13 got married, worked, drank, etc... We also automatically assume that every one of these situations result in damage to the kid. Also not true.

There is a certain tyranny of the closet. College football is arguably one of the most homophobic institutions in the country. Not that it's right, but I can see how someone struggling with being gay, in a hyper-hetero job, would feel the only way to express his sexuality would be in an imbalance of power way. This isn't to say he was right, or a victim. I think of murder all the time and have yet to do it because it's wrong It's to say that environment does play a part in it and as a society we have control over that part.

If some good could come out of this it would be making athletics an open place for people of all sexualities. Or we could teach kids why the imbalance of power relationships are harmful.

I hope to God you are not actually trying to justify what Sandusky did, but you seem to be suggesting that these boys might have wanted or enjoyed being molested by him.

Not justifying, just trying to bring some context to a difficult situation. I don't think I said the boys wanted it, but they may have and they very well may have enjoyed it, maybe not. But what difference does any of that make? Some teens enjoy being with older sex partners.

We've decided that the crime is that they are incapable of consenting (no matter what they think/feel). So their feelings and desires would only be relevant to any help/treatment, if any, they need.

Please lets not even go down this road. Whether or not they may have enjoyed it is not anywhere close to being the point. When you are 10 years old you are too immature to understand human sexuality. Even if those kids did have attractions to other males, their bodies were simply responding to pleasure and thats it. It has nothing to do with the point that these were CHILDREN who were MOLESTED. Whether or not it was enjoyable is not the point. We are talking about power and control over vulnerable children and a collection of cowards who turned the other way to keep a football program from being dragged through the mud.

Besides the fact we are talking about boys reportedly as young at 10, it has nothing to do with what their sexual identity may be, or if they wanted it or enjoyed it.....it is about what Sandusky did to them. He is an adult male who was in a control position over these boys. That is the crime here. While you say you are not justifying his actions your words certainly seem to minimize what happened to these children.

What happened to "these children" some of whom were teens? Each and every one of them suffered traumatic emotional issues? Or is that an assumption that every situation like this leads to harm to the younger one?

I'm not saying they wanted it. I don't know how this effected the victims. It's entirely possible that they suffered no ill effects, or they may have had trauma. I'm not advocating/justifying anything, just stating a reality.

I think it's naive to say that 10 year old boys can't be sexual. Especially in this day and age of earlier puberty. I'm not saying it's right, or wrong, I don't have that answer. I do think it's dangerous to not acknowledge that the boys may have said yes, but the crime is that Sandusky was obligated to say no. His obligation, if they approached him, was to say no and help them explore their desires in a healthy way, i.e. with their family or a therapist. The "wrong" committed is that we don't want sexual relations with people of certain age gaps, even if it's not harmful in that particular case.

It's not criminal for a 12 year old to want to have sex with a man. And, I would dare say, it's harmful to the 12 year old to say that his desires are criminal, not valid, shameful, impossible, etc.... The real danger is the broad, sweeping generalizations and infantalization of adolescents (which is what we do when we call Sandusky a pedophile). Most probably aren't ready for sex, but some may be and we should have an outlet for all of them to explore their thoughts and desires. I'm not saying facilitate sex, but at least have a venue to discuss and understand what is going on. And, that they aren't wrong, bad, etc... for having those thoughts.

Please tell me you are not a family therapist or work with children.

I'm not now, but I worked with abused kids for years.

It shows. And I suspect those kids were better off for your work.

For once, I am speechless.

But you just "spoke" millierbeach!

With a voting age population of nearly ten million, only Democrat David Wecht and Republican Anne Covey were elected as judges in Pennsylvania, one with the financial support of the same lawyers who rated him though under the guise of a different organization, and the other with a major qualification of being pissed that Sandra Day O'Connor preceded her as the first woman on the Supreme Court.

I supported the loser in both cases, though I voted for Stabile and just didn't vote in Covey's race.

But it is not sour grapes that is the reason for pointing this out. Wecht won with just over a million votes and Covey with less than half a million. There was a disappearance of a state attorney whose computer hard drive data was lost and whose disappearance was never really solved. Money corrupting the judicial process may be a problem.

Why thank you!

I read the entire 23 page complaint and one thing really struck me.

Now remember, this isn't exactly what happened. This is the prosecutor's attempt to state things in a way that's best for their case. Of course they have to state facts that support the charges, but it's what people read first so it's their chance to shade the debate.

If Sandusky did what is alleged then hopefully PA has an extension of statute of limitations that will allow him to be prosecuted and punished.

What struck me is absolutely no mention of any harm. Granted statutory crimes don't need to show harm. The fact that the act happened is the crime. But generally prosecutors are looking for all the help they can get and in this case I can imagine they'd want the jury (cuz if it ever goes to trial Sandusky will def. want a jury trial) to be emotionally attached. It's an opening for the defense if they can say there was no harm, cuz if there was harm the boys would have said something, and all the defense arguments that follow.

It was also interesting that a couple of the victims said "looking back it now seems inappropriate". That sounds an awful lot like coaching by the prosecutor, or threats, "how do you think it will look if you have to testify?" And if any of you don't think prosecutors do that kind of thing you need a reality check fast.

There's enough smoke in that complaint to make a fire for me. I think the guy ought to serve time. Also, those who covered it up should suffer some sort of penalty too, showing others that they HAVE to report and act on these situations immediately if for no other reason than to help the victims deal with it right away.

What is more, governor Tom Corbett "who was attorney general as the child-sex-abuse case against a former Penn State assistant coach unfolded" claims to have been legally obligated not to comment on what he knew about the case at the time.

But this could still prove to be a hot political football (pardon the pun) as more information comes out. Some parents may want to know in no uncertain terms how much he could have done with compromising his legal obligation, but did not do. His boast that "if he had been the witness to the alleged sodomizing of a 10-year-old boy in a Penn State lockerroom, he certainly would have called police" is empty hindsight at this point. Btu he is in the party of "family values".

At the very least he has presided over, and endorsed by inaction, the homophobic atmosphere in the state. If he and others can prevent people from taking a hard look at all the facts as more and more of them "come out" (pun intended) and , and thinking them through, he will not have to worry about paying a political price. Neither political party wants bad publicity in a presidential election year.

But that is a big "if". Pennslyvania is an important swing state, and though this happened under Dems and Repubs, Corbett is in office as it explodes and was in a position to know some facts not known to the public earlier. This may explain why he acted so quickly to ditch Paterno and Spanier. But Repubs don't look good.

CNN: The Penn State nightmare: Who knew what, and when?


What's interesting (and sad) is that Sandusky quite publicly flaunted his relationship with these boys--but perhaps this lulled people into thinking that he was a trustworthy person. Look at how kind he is--taking these underprivileged boys to football games.

Of course, Torontonians will be aware of similar scandals that were revealed some years ago about teenaged boys being let into Toronto Maple Leafs hockey games as a precurser to sexual assault.

Sadly, when a man is seemingly too good, you have to question his motives.


On wonders: what was Sandusky's wife doing all this time? Surely she must have questioned the inordinate amount of time he was spending with these boys.

One might also wonder what these kids were thinking and why didn't anyone squeal on him.

There is something called the Blue Code of Silence that generally refers to the disavowance of miscreance of USA police officers by other officers who are aware violations by the miscreant. This is not just a characteristic of police, but a widespread symptom of uncilized behaviour throughout our society. I would not be surprised if this same Code prevents as much testimony about crimes as threats by the criminals does.

Also young pubescent boys today are far more sophisticated than previous generations. The more liberal attitudes of the young over the past 40-50 years (approximately since Stonewall) has made them more aware of homosexuality regardless of whether it is a part of sex education courses in high schools. It is unlikely that all of these boys did not know what he was up to and that some of them did not gossip. The boys who were molested also may have seen others who played along achieve some advantage in their desired career as an athlete, at least to the collegiate level.

These young men were also disadvantaged or troubled. They are the ones most likely to be worldly-wise.

Should there be lawsuits, much of this will come out. In their eyes, many of these boys may have a lot to lose by becoming known "victims" of Jerry Sandusky. The most powerful consequence will be peer pressure.

Wow. Just Wow.

I really don't know what to say. What I really find disturbing is the idea "It's not illegal for a 12 year old boy to want to have sex with a grown man." Maybe not illegal to want that, but certainly very, very inappropriate. It almost sounds like you are placing some of the onus on the boys....Not cool.

Also, I find disturbing the stapling of the Homophobia and Pedophilia. A LOT of the homophobes out there say pedophile is a legitimate sexual orientation. No, it's not. Most pedophiles and sexual offenders have a very specific preference and age range. They either like boys or girls, they go for either younger, teenage or older. It's very rare that a pedophile will prey on both boys and girls. I do understand the notion of that if society were more open about sexuality and accepting of homosexuality, then gay men would have it easier, but IMO, it does not apply to this situation.

Here's why:

If you read the entire 23 page indictment, the allegations for many of the boys were quite simmilar. It started with Sandusky sitting next to the boys, and little touches on the leg and back. It progressed to him showering with them, even if they weren't sweatty. It finally progressed to spending the night together and him performing sex acts on them and subjecting them to sex acts. Then, if boys resisted, Sandusky cut them off. There appears to be a conscious pattern. This is not some simple "crime of opportunity." There is a pattern of willful intent. Sandusky knew what he was doing. That's what's so sick about it. He knew. He Planned.

Also, in many cases, sex abuse and exploitation are crimes of fear and domination. The boys who resisted Sandusky's advances were cut off from going with the team. He plied them with promises, and he most likely threatened them with reprisal if they told. It says in the indictment that after Sandusky was seen in the shower with one boy in 2002, that he drove back around the facility parking lot three times in a manner that was intimidating. That speaks volumes.

I agree Shytown. I thought some comments read like an ad for NAMBLA.

Why would you say that?

Thanks for the offer to put words into my mouth but I have more than enough already.

What I am asking is how this went on so long with so many young boys and, at least until recently, almost no one said anything to anyone who might stop it - not the kids, not the few parents who found out and certainly not the authorities who were notified.

Why the silence? Do you even care to know?

Sometimes you have to ask unpleasant questions to get useful answers.

I wasn't referring to your post, Idiot. Learn some reading comprehension.


And yes, I would like to know why this went on for so many years, and there were so many chances for this to end; so many allegations by improper conduct by Sandusky, and no one did their job and took it to the next level. Not one person.

My only conclusion is that someone pulled some strings. Someone in a position of power. Someone Like Joe Paterno. Even if he simply asked the higher ups at the university to go easy on his friend, that is reprehensible, and he deserves whatever he gets.

Another thing about sexual abuse, something that is hard to comprehend unless it's touched your life, and even then it's difficult to wrap your head around, is that it really is a crime of intimidation. So many cases, such as the Graham James incidents with Sheldon Kennedy and other players, So many incidents of sexual abuse perpetrated by family members, etc. is that there's the threat of reprisal if someone tells. "Tell and I'll rip your f**kin' head off!" Even if the victims are being bribed to keep quiet, there's still a horrible, horrible shame involved. No one wants to admit that they're being abused. Especially if they're male. There's a real, strong stigma against being a male victim of sexual abuse, especially if the perpetrator is a man.

You make a HUGE assumption that all the boys were "victims". I think if any of the boys wanted the sexual contact, were struggling with how to be intimate with a man, etc.... it's dangerous to tell them that what they were thinking was horrible, and in fact can lead to shame around sex and male to male intimacy for the rest of their lives.

It's obvious that you have made up your mind and are using your judgements to globalize the experience that all the boys had w/ Sandusky, whether it's true or not. I don't think anyone, least of all the prosecutor filing the charges, which is the only information that's out there right now, knows that. Those papers weren't filed with the guys best interest in mind. The way they're worded isn't for the benefit of anyone other than the prosecutors. The prosecutors haven't even proven that what they allege has happened. So we have one highly predjudiced account of what happened out there and there could be much much more about the experiences on either side of the ledger. They could have been more horrific than written, or they could be exaggerated. That's still yet to be shown.

I only speak from the kids perspective. It's clear if the contact happened Sandusky is guilty and should be punished to the full extent of the law. How the guys are treated is a totally separate issue.

If any of the kids were ok with the contact, sought out the contact, etc.. they won't be well served by hysterical broad sweeping statements of how victimized they were, how criminal the behavior was, etc. They need a discussion about why we have the statutory rape laws and that their feelings weren't wrong or perverted. And how he used power to take advantage of them an that they're worth more than that, that if they want gay contact they don't have to let their partners take advantage of them, etc.... Many, many, many gay men were taken advantage of. Some of them sought it out as kids trying to deal with their sexuality and when it was discovered were further traumatized by family and others with negative messages of male intimacy.

As much as we should condemn Sandusky we should try to make a safe space for the guys to discuss and deal with what happened if they need to. Some may have dealt with it already. Some may have been ok with it. It doesn't help them, and it's not an honest discussion of the issue, to tell them how much of a victim they are if they don't feel victimized.

And FYI it's not illegal, or even immoral for a 12 year old boy to want to have sex with an adult, male or female. Those feelings are going to happen. It's the adult's responsibility to refuse. Violating that is a crime. Whether it's morally right or wrong, or healthy, is a question that remains different in different cultures. You have obviously taken a view and believe everyone else should believe as you do. I probably have a very similar view to yours. I do, however, feel an obligation to remain open to at least hearing how this issue is handled in different cultures and remember that it's "right" for them.

SeaCraig, what planet are you from? There is not a state in the union that says it is o.k. for a 12 year old to have sex with an adult, regardless of what the 12 year old desires. How you can go on to defend these actions is beyond belief. You seem to be confusing a crush with a crime.

I think he's babbling on about some touchy feely, warm and fuzzy crap that we have to be careful with the victims because some of them might have been either ok with it on some level, or at best conflicted about what's going on. That may be, that some of them were conflicted about it, but point blank, SANDUSKY EXPLOITED THEM! THEY ARE VICTIMS!

Also, while I agree it's not criminal for a 12 year old boy to be curious about sex and sexuality, there are boundary lines. I can't speak for any other culture, but in this culture that we live in, it is by no means appropriate for a grown man, especially one in a position of authority to have sexual relations with a 10-12 year old boy.

I apologize for misunderstanding then misrepresenting your quote.

I have never said anything different! The "bad act" is on the part of the adult, not the kid. And I have never defended Sandusky at all. He'll get what's due, if anything. And I can't help if others don't have a knowledge of, or compassion for, young boys struggling with being gay and investigating their sexuality. I'm 52, I can't tell how many gay men I know who at 10, 11, 12 approached an adult male for sex in an attempt to work out their feelings. Very few had those feelings validated and claim that it was a significant factor in the development of their sexuality. I feel like we, gay adult men, have a responsibility to affirm positive sex messages for gay kids. That doesn't mean having sex with them (that's all some people see is the act, it's an ignorant view), but it does mean letting them know that their feelings, desires, urges etc... are natural and giving them the tools to explore those desires in an appropriate way.

You may not be old enough to remember the big case in CA where the day care workers were charged w/ molesting the kids...and were acquited...at that time EVERYONE thought they were evil, guilty, etc... A certain hysteria takes over. And it seems like we're incapable of seeing any shades of gray in our society.
In this case Sandusky has to be the evil, evil man and any kid he had sexual contact with (if he did) has to be a poor, poor victim. I'm sorry if I don't see life in absolutist terms.

Like I've said several times already, it looks to me like there's probably a fire under all this smoke. And Sandusky should be punished. But those who hysterically rant about "the victims" could be doing damage to them too. I'm just sayin.

And go to a gay men's abuse survivor group sometime and listen to the stories of how when as a boy they told someone about being abused they were shamed and meant to feel bad about what they were feeling. It's tragic. So yeah, all that "touchy feely" stuff makes a difference.

I guess you're incapable of seeing different levels of life. I wish you well in your journey.

"The "wrong" committed is that we don't want sexual relations with people of certain age gaps, even if it's not harmful in that particular case. "

This is why I said some comments sounded like ads for NAMBLA

But that's the law, whether it's healthy, wanted, not wanted, damaging, etc... none of that makes any difference in terms of the law. It's one of the few "strict liability" crimes that we have. In most criminal offenses intent and harm play a role. In this crime it makes absolutely no difference.

It sounds like you have a hard and fast belief that sex between people of certain age gaps is always wrong. It that true?

Some more twists and turns. It seems that the judge who freed Sandusky on $100,000 "unsecured" bail (meaning he doesn't have to pay anything unless he doesn't show up for court), was herself a former volunteer at Second Mile. Surely, someone charged with 40 counts of molesting children would be a flight risk (prosecutors had requested $500,000 bail and an ankle monitor), yet he was able to leave court without paying a cent or having to wear an ankle monitor to track his whereabouts. Did she give him easier treatment because she had possibly known him and volunteered at his charitable organization?

Further, the CEO of Second Mile has resigned.

Yes, I do firmly believe that sexual relations between a 10 year old boy and an older man is always wrong. An adult male should know it is wrong, it shouldnt even enter into his mind that buggering a 10 yr old boy who was under his supervision could be the right thing to do. I am shocked that any reasonable person could even question otherwise.

I showed this thread to a friend of ours who is Director of a centre that deals with sexually abused children as well as their families and also the abusers. He was pretty disturbed by some posters comments as well.

I don't think anyone here has ever said that it would be right for the adult to consent to the sex. My question is more about the kid.

So a 10 year old and an adult is def. wrong to you. What about a 10 year old and a 16 year old? Or 16 and 20? What would the rigid standard be that would work for everyone? Is every 18 year old ready to choose their sex partners and not subject to being a victim to abuse of power? If not than maybe we should raise the age of consent.

My whole point is that the law is the law and Sandusky will be prosecuted accordingly. But the law doesn't account for any of the dynamics, the law's ONLY concern is if the contact happened. It doesn't even matter if you knew the kid was underage.

But from the young man's side how do we affirm to them that sex is natural, that their feelings and desires are ok and explain to them what's appropriate? I'm getting the impression that you think that means adults having sex kids. If that's what your getting from that I'm sorry, that would be so wrong.

It's pretty clear that your thought process runs to absolutes. What would be the rigid standard we should apply to all kids in every case? See I don't think there's one answer and when you apply one rigid answer to all kids you end up harming some of those kids. And I've met many of those harmed kids as men who spent years cleaning up the shame and humiliation of being told they were sick for having the thoughts they had, or that because they sought out sex with an older partner that they were a vicitm.

I can't imagine one comment being at all disturbing, I don't think anyone has advocated sex between adults and kids. I'd be interested in knowing what this professional found disturbing and why.

A local reporter took the interesting tact of asking a couple of Greek scholars whether this case corresponds to a Greek tragedy.

One pointed out how the analogy might be flawed since the Greeks considered sex between an older man and a youth to be culturally and developmentally allowed, if not required, even though the Greeks also set cultural age limits and had varying opinions on the tradition. He also mentions that the gods raped mere mortals at will as a better analoby; and mortals had to deal with the consequences.

In that analogy the authority figures at Penn State, including Jerry Sandusky, would be gods who differ from our current christian puritan-based society in that they are subject to mortal's laws against such behavior. But the Greeks were also intensely athletic and worshipped the body as part of the glory of men and women.

In this body-beautiful centered culture - much like our own worship of youth - abuses of the law were bound to occur. But the interesting thing ommitted by the scholar was that the progeny of these god-mortal relationships took full advantage of their alleged divinity to oppress the other mere mortals. It is understandable why he would not think or want to go there. Former attorney general Lynne "death penalty" Abraham is employed by Second Mile. It is difficult to know just what she will have to do to protect the name of Second Mile. But by law any attorney will have the interest of their client as their primary concern.

NPR: The Citadel Faces Abuse Scandal Similar To Penn State's

Does Syracuse University have its own scandal brewing? CNN: Syracuse puts associate basketball coach on leave amid police probe

Just read about a payout by the Red Sox for a similar scandal where the clubhouse manager preyed on young men in FL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/d..._n_1095118.html

It's getting to a point where there has to be some discussion of why sports is such a fertile ground for this. I'm sure the money and the homophobic based denial play a part.

In this lengthy timeline of the Jerry Sandusky affair, this obscene game of telephone was particularly telling:This is the type of thing that makes a case complex enough that many of the guilty - other than Sandusky - will go without being held accountable.

Well, I have to say that as sad as the Penn State case is, the Syracuse abuse case is simply the most bizarre thing. The audio tapes indicating that Bernie Fine's wife knew what was going on all along... and then later she herself had sex with the abuse victim (when he was 18). Bizarro.



And, to add some Canadian content, the father of former Toronto Raptors head coach Jay Triano has been charged with sexually assaulting two girls.

Really, it makes you wonder if the sports world is just full of pervs.

Disgusting. How can they live with themselves?

Like physical violent people, most sexual abusers were abused themselves. And for all the hysteria around it we do very little to really "deal" with it. And there are many, many reasons why it's not dealt with...with boys there's the homophobic angle, many health insurance plans (if you even have health insurance) don't cover mental health benefits, etc...

Pennsylvania has become the State of Denial and so far is not showing signs of exiting that stage.

When a woman "with tears in hear eyes" stood up during a townhall meeting to say "I feel Shame." she offered an opportunity for the entire population of this state to start to heal.

Yet the best the school president Rodney Erickson could offer was "we will not let the actions of one individual determine who we are".

WHAT!? I don't think we have much choice in that matter at the moment.

Why couldn't he instead have used the opportunity to lecture and condemn the behavior of the insensitive students who ran riot when their precious coach was fired for doing little or nothing about a situation that he says he was informed of. God only knows how much he really knew. At this point his credibility is on the rocks. And now the first law suit in the case alleges abuse 100 times starting 20 years ago. Penn State is a great school. Pennsylvania must "own up and come clean".

NY Times: Culture of sports works against children, especially boys, in reporting abuse

Sport is lucrative and therefore very powerful, especially in the USA where a false-puritan ethic cloaks deviance.

Ex-AAU (Amateur Athletic Union) CEO Robert "Bobby" Dodd accused of sexual molestation.

Incredibly, it seems that former Penn State athletic Director Tim Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz may actually get off - pun unintened - if their lawyers can twist the testimony of former assistant coach Mike McQueary enough to create confusion about what he actually witnessed and what he told them.

Still the case is going to trial and the devil will come out in the details.

Expensive lawyers love confusing details.