April fools

This from the Beaver County Times:

Allegations of improper conduct with an underage male first surfaced in 1998, while Sandusky was still employed by Penn State. That incident allegedly occurred in a shower at Penn State's on-campus football facility. No charges were filed.

Sandusky retired the next year, in 1999. He was 55, prime age for a coach. Odd, to say the least - especially with Joe Paterno thought even then to be ready to quit and Sandusky a likely, openly-discussed successor.

It seems logical to ask: What did Paterno know, and when did he know it? What did Penn State's administration know, and when did they know it?

Best-case scenario: Charges are never brought, and Sandusky walks away with his reputation permanently scarred. The rumors, the jokes, the sideways glances - they won't ever stop. Paterno and Penn State do the great escape.

Worst-case scenario: Sandusky is charged. Then it seems reasonable to wonder: Did Penn State not make an issue of Sandusky's alleged behavior in 1998 in exchange for him walking away from the program at an age premature for most coaches? Did Penn State's considerable influence help get Sandusky off the hook?

Don't kid yourself. That could happen. Don't underestimate the power of Paterno and Penn State in central Pennsylvania when it comes to politicians, the police and the media.

In 1999, Penn State was rid of Sandusky. His rep was unblemished, which allowed him to continue running a charitable foundation that gave him access to underage males. To be a volunteer assistant with a high school football team, thus gaining access to underage males.

If Paterno and Penn State knew, but didn't act, instead facilitating Sandusky's untroubled retirement - are Paterno and Penn State responsible for untoward acts since committed by Sandusky?

This is far from an outrageous hypothesis, especially given the convenient timeline.

Date of publication: April 3, 2011!

(Hat tip to Chris Krewson.)