ShareThis Page

PSU board member, former player Taliaferro defends Paterno Report

| Thursday, Feb. 14, 2013, 7:39 p.m.

Adam Taliaferro, who nearly lost his life playing football for Penn State and is a member of the school's Board of Trustees, said the Paterno Report should be strongly considered when assessing everything from Joe Paterno's legacy to sanctions the NCAA levied against the Nittany Lions' football program.

The Paterno Report, released Sunday, is a rebuttal to the Freeh Report, which concluded last July that a conspiracy of silence at Penn State enabled former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky to sexually abuse boys for more than a decade. The NCAA used the Freeh Report as the basis for sanctions that included a four-year ban postseason play and the loss of more than 40 scholarships.

“I think the Paterno Report showed that this isn't a clear-cut case as to what happened,” Taliaferro said. “I think there are a lot of unanswered questions from the NCAA's point of view. I think with this level of sanctions you really want there to be open-shut evidence, and I think it would be fair for (the NCAA) to read the report and then come to reasonable conclusions.”

An NCAA spokesperson said in an email to the Tribune-Review that the organization stands behind the sanctions.

Taliaferro, who defied long odds to walk again after suffering a catastrophic injury in 2000, had received criticism from Penn State alumni for his measured responses to events following his election to the Board of Trustees last April.

Taliaferro said he waited to speak out for two reasons: he wanted the Paternos to have their say and he followed a lesson from his former coach. Joe Paterno, Taliaferro said, always told his players to gather information before speaking out on an issue.

“I think it should be known that the board never accepted the conclusions of the Freeh Report, but those conclusions were put out there for the entire world to see,” Taliaferro said. “I think it's only fair and appropriate, for me personally and everyone on the board, to see Paterno's side of the story because he never got an opportunity to come in front of the board and tell his side of the story. That's why this whole thing has been so hard for me, because the way Joe has been portrayed, that's not the person I know.”

Paterno was fired in November 2011 following a grand jury indictment of Sandusky that eventually led to Sandusky's conviction on more than 40 charges of sexual abuse. Paterno died in January 2012, and the Freeh Report concluded the legendary coach was part of a cover-up. The Paterno Report has been alternately hailed as a repudiation of Freeh's findings and criticized as a self-serving attempt to restore Paterno's image.

Several other Board of Trustees also said the Paterno Report needs to be taken into consideration.

Ryan McCombie, elected to the Board last April, said former FBI profiler Jim Clemente provided valuable insight in the Paterno Report on how to spot a child pedophile. It also offered a solution to a widespread problem that is misunderstood by most people, McCombie said.

“The Clemente report is the first thing that has made any sense to me since this whole debacle began,” he said.

Scott Brown is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @ScottBrown_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.