Six Steps to the Truth with Dr. Ed Ray

There have been lots of emails popping up on Facebook and message boards that are supposedly from Dr. Ed Ray of Oregon State University. He was the Chair of the Executive Committee at the NCAA and stood on stage with Dr. Mark Emmert of the NCAA when the sanctions against Penn State were announced.

We were provided one of those emails, directly from someone who emailed Dr. Ray and provided Dr. Ray’s response. Our technical staff analyzed the email headers and confirmed that the email did in fact come from Dr. Ray’s email account at Oregon State University.

Our staff also emailed with Dr. Ray regarding the emails and his response and he personally confirmed that the content of the email was consistent with what he has said.

We then emailed Dr. Rod Erickson to get a comment from him on a few questions regarding the content of the emails.  He did not respond.  He passed our email to Dave La Torre, who kindly told us that they would not comment or answer any questions unless we had an official statement from the NCAA.

The most important content is in the second email below in paragraph 4. Which states: 

‘…there was no discussion of threats if the consent decree was not accepted.’ 

and

‘My presumption is that the usual enforcement process, which could take a year or two to reach a conclusion would have followed and in that process the possibility of the death penalty could have been considered by the Committee on Infractions which would have heard the case.’

and

‘Was there a real risk that the normal process would lead to a suspension of play for a year or more? Yes! So, there was a real risk of the death penalty if the consent decree was not signed but it was not in the package the two committees approved and we did not authorize any threats.’

Here are those emails, decide for yourself:

Step 1: Email to Dr Ray:

August 31, 2012

Dr. Ray,
 
I just read an interview where you discussed the sanctions at Penn State. You mentioned that in all the emails you received, you never have any mention of the victims. I can’t speak for others, but would assume that is because anyone with a heart is grieving, and is abhorred by the manipulation of the monster that is Jerry Sandusky, but doesn’t feel that they have to mention that every time they talk about Penn State. To be clear, I grieve for those victims, as they did not receive the protection that society demands.
 
Where we disagree is who was responsible. I grieve the fact that the district attorney didn’t prosecute, child protective services didn’t list Jerry Sandusky as a potential offender, and the Second Mile didn’t do anything with the information in 1998 when the State of Pennsylvania deemed there was not enough evidence. I grieve that the many people who didn’t investigate charges to the fullest and the slow process of the Pennsylvania District Attorney, those who trusted their children to Sandusky, and the administrators that tried to hide it in the high schools and agencies of Pennsylvania. It seems that in the NCAA’s mind, that means Penn State should vacate wins and be penalized. I think your cause and effect is a little warped, and your response actually trivializes the issue, especially when we look at other tragic occurrences.
 
I grieve for the rape victim at Montana, covered up to keep players eligible.
 
I grieve for the alleged rape victim by an Notre Dame football player who was distraught and committed suicide. The news account reported that the authorities couldn’t get to interview the player in question due to the football program stonewalling.
 
I grieve for the Notre Dame student killed, when the football team forced him to ascend a lift in high wind to ensure practice was taped.
 
I grieve for the family and player at Baylor who was murdered by a teammate. This was covered up.
 
I grieve for the Syracuse basketball ball boys abused by deviate behavior of an assistant coach which was known and ignored for years.

I grieve for the rape victim at Washington, where football was placed ahead the victim’s rights by pressuring her to accept mediation instead of legal charges.
 
These are all sad stories that 99% of citizens find deplorable and grieve for victims, and that our society allows this to happen. There are many others I am sure.
 
By you and the NCAA’s actions of not acting, commenting or sanctioning culture in these situations as you did for PSU’s criminal actions, I can only assume you do not. At a minimum, you place less concern or impact on these victims or crimes. Especially when it is obvious that the historical compliance, academic achievement and adherence to NCAA standards has been exemplary at Penn State, and at a higher level than these other institutions. This is especially confusing when you point out as stated below, the evidence is not 100% accurate:
 
‘Well, you know, there’s always this issue of, sort of, so, is it 100% accurate? You’ve seen it, their exhibits, their emails. And then they tell you how they think the emails fit within the narrative that they’re sharing with you. Maybe you buy it, maybe you don’t buy it. So, I think i think it’s legitimate for people to say, ‘Is it 100 percent accurate? Is it 60 percent accurate?’
 
After thinking about the above, I was hoping you could clarify some questions I have on the NCAA process and procedure.
 
1. Why do you see Penn State situation is ‘breaking new ground’ versus these other situations listed above. Is it the number of victims, the people involved. All are heinous, and facts seem to bear out more active behavior versus inactivity in the PSU situation.

2. What is the standard of accuracy of culpable information that the NCAA uses to decide sanctions, censure and even to act at all? It seems that by your own admission there is more culpability in other situation of egregious behavior the NCAA has not acted upon.
 
3. The NCAA has always weighed past history in any action it takes, what makes that no longer applicable as in the PSU situation?
 
4. How does the NCAA indict a whole culture on specific incidents and how is the decision made that culture is the reason for the issue rather than poor decisions, inaccurate information, or just incomplete understanding of the gravity of a situation? This is especially confusing in the context when you admit you do not even know how accurate the information is.
 
5. Does it not bother the NCAA that several news outlets published that Penn State was coerced into the decree, yet you deny. Mark Emmert has been quoted both ways on this issue, but more often states that the death penalty was a clear option. Isn’t it important for your constituency to understand the process, and if Dr. Erickson and the Penn State BOT is lying, why as an educational body do you not want to clear that up?
 
6. If Dr. Erickson was not coerced to sign as you say, and that part of NCAA’s explanation for severity of the sanctions is Dr. Erickson agreed, is it NCAA policy that any NCAA institution president can solicit sanctions without their boards approval, or significant facts to prove actions are warranted, and the NCAA will implement?
 
7. If this is truly a situation breaking new ground, and discussions that are not in the public view were made between the NCAA and any member at PSU, would you not want those public so member institutions know the facts and can adhere to new rules and adjust their process, versus vague innuendo on culture? Would you not want everything transparent that you are doing?
 
8. If you view this as a once in a lifetime situation and you not see sanctioning other people for criminal behavior or other ‘ out of bounds’ issues , how does that do anything more than just punish PSU.
 
As a long time fan of college athletics, this whole situation confuses me. Yes, I am a Penn State fan, but I have always loved all college sports because of their values, the concept of the student athlete, and the beauty of amateur competition. In that spirit, Penn State always made me proud by extolling ‘ Success with Honor’, a concept that was lauded by the NCAA in the past. By tying the issues to long term culture, the Freeh report and NCAA actions condemn that as not being true. I don’t believe that and won’t allow three vague emails to throw away that legacy.I am confused as to why the NCAA would to want to as well, as both Myles Brand and Mark Emmert commended Penn State for being a model for the NCAA in the last ten years. Do they not know what model behavior is?
 
Thank you for your time, and hopefully I can find it in my soul to remain a college sports fan. It’s not about football to me, it is about a legacy.
 
I look forward to your response. Thank You.
 
Matthew

Step 2: Email from Dr. Ray:

August 31, 2012

Dear Matthew:
 
This is the only case in my now completed 5 1/3 years serving on the executive committee of the NCAA in which the executive committee and the Division I Board have been presented with and asked to determine a set of punitive and corrective measures that would resolve enforcement matters, except for any forthcoming disclosures regarding individual culpability. I know of no other major case that was resolved by a consent decree, which as you know is signed on behalf of both parties.
 
The Freeh Report, the Sandusky investigation and the trial information and perhaps other information prompted the president and board of trustees of Penn State University to seek closure through a consent decree. I have no idea how fully the various parties involved relied on any given set of information to make that decision. The executive committee and the Division I Board voted unanimously for the package of actions announced at the press conference as adequate to reach closure without further institutional investigations. Those groups consist of about 30 presidents and chancellors from all three divisions of the NCAA.
 
To me, this case was unique because of the conspiracy of silence that was maintained over more than a decade, while the same and new victims were harmed. I was one of those 30 votes and others would have to speak for themselves. We did consider the suspension of play or death penalty and voted by a substantial majority in each group not to include it in the proposed consent decree package.
 
Also, I chaired those meetings and I know that there was no discussion of threats if the consent decree was not accepted. My presumption is that the usual enforcement process, which could take a year or two to reach a conclusion would have followed and in that process the possibility of the death penalty could have been considered by the Committee on Infractions which would have heard the case. Was there a real risk that the normal process would lead to a suspension of play for a year or more? Yes! So, there was a real risk of the death penalty if the consent decree was not signed but it was not in the package the two committees approved and we did not authorize any threats.
 
I hope this helps. I have no idea what interview you are referring to and I hope I have no more. My regret is that no one connected to Penn State has actually said “we made a lot of mistakes and innocent children suffered. We need to deal with the elements of the consent decree and ensure that nothing like this happens again.” This case is not about what the NCAA did to Penn State. This case is about the actions and inactions of leaders at Penn State that led to horrible abuse of innocent children.  
The acceptance of the consent decree and the appointment of a monitor for the changes to be implemented give me encouragement that the right things will be done.
 
You mention many other horrible cases and ask why the NCAA acted as it did in this case. Again, speaking only for myself, we were asked to consider acceptable elements for a consent decree to close this institutional case and we did that. One can only deal with the matters brought before him/her to the best of one’s ability.
 
Ed

Step 3: Our Email with Dr. Ray:

September 5, 2012

Dr. Ray,

The email response from you was forwarded to me and there are a lot of emails circulating that are being stated that they came from you.  Can you confirm that you sent this? I was trying to find out if the email message was in fact from you or if it was forged.  Can you tell me if you wrote it?

Step 4: Email from Dr. Ray to StateCollege.com:

September 5, 2012

I do not audit answers to third parties to see if they have been altered, especially when they reach people I have never heard from before. Obviously, I have no idea what other e-mails you may have received that are attributed to me. Having said that, the statement below seems accurate to me and adds little to the comments I made at the press conference and in follow up interviews. Any further questions you have should be addressed to the NCAA, since I am no longer chair of the executive committee or on the board.

Ed

Step 5:  Our Email to Dr. Erickson:

September 5, 2012

We are contacting you to get your side of this issue.  We have received a number of emails that Dr. Ed Ray has sent out that are basically saying that you and Penn State asked for a consent decree over an investigation.  

He is saying the blame for these sanctions lie with You and the Board of Trustees and not with the NCAA.

Which is different than the story that has previously come out.

Before we go to print with a story, we would like to get your side of the story.  We want to get the truth out.

Since the NCAA had decided not to institute a suspension of play or death penalty and not only that, since the NCAA’s own rules reserved that type of punishment for repeat offenders, which Penn State was not, why would you agree to the penalties in the consent decree?

Did Emmert tell you that the NCAA wanted to shut down Penn State for this season, even though they had no authority to do so?

Did Emmert threaten you when in fact he didn’t have the authority from the NCAA to do so?

Dr. Ray is saying that they would have put Penn State through a 1-2 year investigation before making any decisions.

So again our question is since Penn State had never had any previous violations or punishments and the NCAA’s punishments are spelled out via it’s bylaws, why agree to something above and beyond what they could do to Penn State?

As a second question, why did you agree to fully accept all conclusions of the Freeh report as part of the consent decree?

We are working on a story for tomorrow, so if you could get back to us tomorrow by noon with any further clarifications that would be appreciated.  If you can schedule us, we would be happy to schedule a 15 minute interview with you to discuss further.

Step 6: Email Response from Penn State

September 5, 2012

As I indicated, we do not address third party emails. If you have an official statement from the NCAA that addresses your questions we’ll be happy to address as we always have.

Best, Dave  (La Torre)

Step 7: We are still waiting for the truth.

September 6, 2012

Tomorrow: Part 2: Questions for Dr. Erickson, in light of the emails that appear above.