The Lions' Pride

A little bit back Costas came out and he expected some people to challenge the Freeh report. I believe he said something along the lines of "I expect to see some respected people start to challenge the report."

It was before the PA lawsuit, so I don't know if that's what he was talking about. But there was a clear change in his tune after he read the report in full.

I know what you mean, I hate having to rely on people who have previously piled on. Unfortunately, we're not really in a position to hold grudges when it comes to titans of the industry.

Costas has slowly been evolving a bit on this issue. I remember him starting with Joe Posnanski's interview. He seemed like he wanted to be convinced that the narrative was wrong. Maybe after reviewing the Freeh Report again, in conjunction with subsequent reports countering it, he will see that there is potential for a false narrative.

Slaten knows this case inside and out. I would expect those two would have an excellent dialogue on it.

Another poster previously asked, but I didn't see a response. For those who have listened to Slaten, do we know if they will definitely discuss PSU? With them both having St Louis roots, he could easily be having him on to discuss the Cardinals or something.

NorthsideLion,

I live in StL and have listened to Slaten many times on my drive home. I'd say the chances of them talking Cardinals baseball or anything else not related to small talk or PSU, are basically zero. He has to have been dying to come back on the air and discuss the Freeh/NCAA criticism.

Thanks guys.

Costas saying he landed in London for the Olympics as the Freeh report was released and was told by phone that the Freeh report was "credible," in his conclusions.
He based his opinion on that at the time.
Says he gives Slaten a lot of credit for reading it first and refuting it. Costas says he now has read it (and Thornburg's and the other "Paterno" reports")and says Slaten's questions are legitimate.
Says the Freeh report amounts to an indictment, and everyone is entitled to their day in court.
Paterno will never have that day in court, unfortunately.
Says none of the principals weren't interviewed.
Criticized the "hundreds of people interviewed" and says it's like doing a report on the Patriots and not interviewing Brady, Belichek, or Kraft but interviewing the guy who runs the elevator. - (hilarious).
Says it was a leap for Freeh to assign motivations.
Says every responsible person should have doubt and want to hear both sides of the story.
Says Joe wasn't as "sharp" and perhaps if he was, he could've done more, etc. etc. Said Joe could've had a more active curiosity about what was going on. Says Joe didn't live up to his own "Joe Paterno standard," but that that is a "farcry from knowing kids were being abused and was knowingly and willingly acting in a coverup. There is insufficient evidence to support ."

This is good stuff.

LOL, Vinny Richichi would probably decline an invitation to return as well. I thought that tub of lard was going to cry when Slaten finished with him

Slaten now ripping the Penn State BOT for preventing Paterno to have his press conference before he passed and threatening to harm his severance package if he did.
Now talking about why Freeh took so long to interview Joe when they knew he was terminally ill.
Costas says he asked Sandusky if Joe ever acted different towards him after 2001 or confronted him or offered him counseling. Sandusky said no. - (This is in relation to the question as to how people like McQ and Joe could continue on if McQ actually saw/said rape.)

Slaten calls vacating of Joe's wins "juvenile."
Costas says it's possible that the sanctions can be reduced. "Governor has filed suit... there will be responses (not sure if he's talking about other lawsuits or what)"
Now they're criticizing Emmert.
Costas recounts speaking with Posnanski. Says "Posnanski was 'pilloried' for going 'too soft' on Joe for not concluding that he was in a cover up. People are so repulsed that they feel that anything short of a blanket condemnation of anyone involved is seen as insufficient." "Damn them all," so to speak. Costas says that isn't fair.

Slaten talks about visiting Sue Paterno and says he got the sense that all they want is the truth. That he trusts the Paternos. They are now talking about how Penn State had such a great reputation and record in the NCAA and how Joe had a long-standing reputation for acts of concern towards young people, former players as people, high standards, etc.
Costas says "in retrospect, Joe 'screwed up,' but it's hard to believe that a man like Joe Paterno, if confronted with the basic facts of how terrible Sandusky was, would be concerned with covering it up. Costas says that defies everything that Joe is.
Now the famous "if it was a cover up, it was a pretty lousy cover up since up to 14 people knew in a short matter of time." - Costas.

Now talking about how CPS, DPW, TSM, etc. never sensed this or acted.
They hope that now more people will be more aware of these activities and have their guards up. "What we learn from people in this field, is that these guys are master deceivers, create a certain impression about themselves. They are not the guys in the trench coats hiding in the bushes."

There ya have it folks. Made for a very good discussion. Hope it's online later.

Man that's good stuff. I hope Costas uses his show to go over it. Thanks for the recap.

That's the least he can do based on the fact he helped shape the narrative.

I was OP but didn't get to listen as I'm stuck at work so much thanks to Lion_in_Cbus and RWC for the recaps! Looking forward to listening to the podcasts tonight or tmrw.

I believe that many months ago on these boards, the consensus was that a big name in sports broadcasting needed to flip in order to get the other side out there. The consensus was that if Costas was the "one" who flipped, it would begin a snowball effect in changing the public narrative.

I think this is the beginning and more momentum will be the result.

WE ARE.....

It was a decent listen. They probably talked about it for 20-25 minutes. I find it unsettling that someone of Costas' reputation would allow someone else to summarize the Freeh report to him so he could then talk about it. I'm a journalist and I would never report or speak about something without having first-hand knowledge of it. For Costas to do so is severely irresponsible. That said, he did amend his thoughts about the report after reading it. I thought Slaten was easier on Costas than he was past guests when Costas repeatedly said that JoePa could have or should have done more to live up to his own moral standards. In the past people that have said that on Slaten's show were ripped a new one by Slaten. "He told the head of the Penn State police!" or "if Paterno got more involved he could have jeopardized the investigation!" Slaten would scream. Of course we all know Slaten and Costas are pals so he wasn't going to rip him. It is good for Penn State that someone like Costas is questioning the Freeh report and has now admit that he spoke about the Freeh report without even reading it at first.

You guys that think that Bob Costas owes going to a larger media and discuss his feelings on the Sandusky situation are crazy, to put nicely.

He said what he had to say, that's that. If it comes up in another conversation, tv show, radio, you know how he stands now. But to think he now needs to discuss this and "apologize" for his quick initial reaction is just silly.