STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) — Joe Paterno's family plans to appeal the sanctions imposed by the NCAA against Penn State for the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.
Family lawyer Wick Sollers in a letter sent Friday to the NCAA said the Paternos would like to appeal the "enormous damage" to Penn State, the community, athletes and the late Hall of Fame coach. He died in January at age 85.
An NCAA spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment on whether college sports' governing body would consider such an appeal.
The landmark NCAA penalties handed down last month included a four-bowl ban, scholarship cuts and 111 vacated wins from 1998-2011, meaning Paterno no longer has the most coaching victories in major college football.
The family said the NCAA acted hastily and without regard for due process, and that it accepted the results of the school's internal investigation without further review.
The report from former FBI director Louis Freeh said Paterno and three school officials concealed allegations against Sandusky dating back to 1998. Paterno's family and the three officials have all vehemently denied the conclusions.
Once a revered defensive coordinator, Sandusky is awaiting sentencing in jail after being convicted in June of 45 counts of sexually abusing young boys.
Penn State handed the Freeh report to the NCAA, which announced its strict sanctions on July 23. Also among the penalties was a $60 million fine.
Paterno's lawyer said the family had a right to file an appeal because it was named in the NCAA's consent decree with Penn state, as well as the Freeh report. The family said it hoped to formally submit an appeal and requested oral arguments before the NCAA's infractions appeal committee, its executive committee or other leaders.
"Furthermore, the NCAA and Penn State's Board (of Trustees) Chair and President entirely ignored the fact that the Freeh Report, on which these extraordinary penalties are based, is deeply flawed because it is incomplete, rife with unsupported opinions and unquestionably one-sided," Sollers wrote the NCAA.
Sollers called the sanctions possibly "the most important disciplinary action in the history of NCAA," but that it had been handled fundamentally inappropriate and unprecedented manner.
Michael McCann, director of the Sports Law Institute and at a professor at Vermont Law School, said Friday he doubts that the Paternos do have legal standing to appeal, and that the NCAA is likely to reject it out of hand, if they respond at all.
"He's not alive, and his family itself would not seem to have any legal standing to challenge the NCAA," McCann said, "at least in terms of filing an appeal.
Text of the Letter:
RE: Notice of Intent to Appeal Consent Decree Imposed by the NCAA
on The Pennsylvania State University
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of my clients, the Paterno family, who are the living
representatives of Joseph V. Paterno and his estate, we file this
notice of intent to appeal the NCAA's consent decree entered against
The Pennsylvania State University. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 32.10.1, the
Paterno Family notes that the consent decree was publicly released on
July 23, 2012. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 32.1.5 and 32.10.1.2, Mr.
Paterno qualifies as an involved individual because he is named in the
NCAA's consent decree as well as the Freeh report, which provided the
alleged factual basis for the consent decree. Finally, pursuant to
NCAA Bylaw 32.10.1, the Paterno family requests the opportunity to
submit its appeal in writing, and it requests an in-person oral
argument before the Infractions Appeals Committee.
The estate undertakes this appeal to redress the enormous damage
done to Penn State, the State College community, former, current and
future student and student athletes, Joe Paterno and certain others
involved, as a result of the unprecedented actions taken by the NCAA.
As will become evident in a thorough and impartial review, the
NCAA acted hastily and without any regard for due process.
Furthermore, the NCAA and Penn State's Board Chair and President
entirely ignored the fact that the Freeh Report, on which these
extraordinary penalties are based, is deeply flawed because it is
incomplete, rife with unsupported opinions and unquestionably
one-sided. The NCAA and Penn State's leadership, by accepting and
adopting the conclusions of the Freeh report, have maligned all of the
above without soliciting contrary opinions or challenging a single
finding of the Freeh report. Given the extraordinary penalty handed
out, prudence and justice require that scrupulous adherence to due
process be observed and not completely ignored.
Both the University leadership and the NCAA have said that they
had to take extreme and immediate measures to demonstrate respect for
the victims and minimize the chance of any similar misconduct from
occurring again. These goals are the right ones, and they embody
objectives we fully endorse. But those objectives cannot be achieved
by a truncated process that wrongly assigns blame by substituting
opinion for fact.
If there is culpabability in this case, a hearing will help expose
it. Due process will not hide the truth and will only illuminate the
facts and allow for thoughtful, substantiated conclusions, not extreme
and unfounded opinions, such as those offered in the Freeh Report and
relied upon by the NCAA.
This matter may be the most important disciplinary action in the
history of the NCAA, and it has been handled in a fundamentally
inappropriate and unprecedented manner. To severely punish a
University and its community and to condemn a great educator,
philanthropist and coach without any public review or hearing is
unfair on its face and a violation of NCAA guidelines.
Accordingly, we submit this appeal in pursuit, finally, of due
process. A fair hearing on the merits is in the interests of justice
and fairness for all involved.
We look forward to your acknowledgement of receipt of this timely
appeal. In your acknowledgement, we would appreciate confirmation of
the exact date triggering the 30-day period for us to submit a written
response in support of our appeal.
Respectfully,
J. Sedwick Sollers III
