Skip to content

McQueary placed on administrative leave

Mike McQueary, Joe Paterno AP

Following up on this ongoing story, the interim president at Penn State announced Friday that Mike McQueary has been placed on administrative leave.

During a press conference that concluded a short time ago, Rodney Erickson said that McQueary’s leave is indefinite in nature.  Additionally, the wide receivers coach/recruiting coordinator will also be paid during this leave, although Erickson noted that is “subject to further determination.”

When asked if firing McQueary had been brought up in any discussions school officials have had since this scandal broke, Erickson could not give a direct or specific answer.

“There are complexities to that issue that I’m not prepared to go into at this particular point,” Erickson said.

It was reported earlier today that whistleblower laws may be preventing Penn State from firing McQueary.  Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett subsequently confirmed there are provisions for whistleblowers that are behind how the university has handled the McQueary situation.

It has subsequently been reported that McQueary is in protective custody somewhere outside of State College.

Permalink 42 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
42 Responses to “McQueary placed on administrative leave”
  1. db3300 says: Nov 11, 2011 4:56 PM

    He should have been fired along with the rest of them. This “hero” saw a 10 year old boy being raped and couldn’t bother to do anything other than being disgusted and getting the heck out of Dodge. What kind of man are you, Mike? I guess we already know the answer to that.

  2. tjg25 says: Nov 11, 2011 5:00 PM

    Exactly DB. I’d have put a permanent end to Sandusky’s terror and the 12 jurors at my “murder” trial would have clapped for me as they acquitted me.

  3. ronin262 says: Nov 11, 2011 5:06 PM

    This had to happen. McQueary, I don’t know your reasons for walking away when you saw Sandusky violating a child, but your coaching career is now over. I hope, I WISH, for a day when McQueary sits in front of 60 Minutes and tells the entire truth of the matter, sparing no detail and not covering for anyone. Redeem yourself, McQueary.

  4. effjohntaylornorelation says: Nov 11, 2011 5:06 PM

    It seems shameful that there is any law that would allow such a coward to maintain the employment he gained by leveraging a rape victim’s future for.

  5. thefiesty1 says: Nov 11, 2011 5:11 PM

    Fire him not payed admin leave. If he sues, it’ll be the least of their problems.

  6. atchick says: Nov 11, 2011 5:16 PM

    Whistle-blower law is a cop-out. Either he has something on Penn State or the prosecuters have asked PS to not fire him so he won’t be a hostile witness. Or maybe he is still under investigation. Whatever the case, he will probably stay on leave until the case is resolved and the special committee completes their investigation. Then he will be fired, as well.

    He joins Curley on “administrative leave”…not exactly company I’d want to be associated with.

  7. bamasleeper13 says: Nov 11, 2011 5:16 PM

    Ditto, he looks like a pretty big guy, I’m sure he could have knocked Sandusky out and grabbed that child. He left and told his dad? Way to be a man. He needs to stay on leave. Loser

  8. 187onsandusky says: Nov 11, 2011 5:19 PM

    Never put your faith in a ginger.

  9. graciemae8 says: Nov 11, 2011 5:25 PM

    If he had a conscience, he would resign.

  10. ErikW65 says: Nov 11, 2011 5:26 PM

    Wow they looked ahead and realized they couldn’t take him on the road either.

  11. irishking says: Nov 11, 2011 5:37 PM

    He’s still using what he witnessed back in 2002 to get a paycheck.

  12. mbg19 says: Nov 11, 2011 5:50 PM

    I have made McQueary a bad guy because he allowed the abuse to continue for not only the few seconds or moments in the locker room, but because days, months and even years after he met with the AD and the VP he said nothing. He walked shoulder to shoulder with Sandusky on multiple occasions, and had to see the guy on campus on a regular basis. How can any “man” have witnessed such a horrible act, and then turn around and spend any amount of time with him. How does one not turn and ask “why aren’t you in jail?” the only explanation I can come up with is that either McQueary wasn’t thorough in his explanation of what really happened that night, or he was offered something in return for his silence. In either event, he should be removed from PSU and if he wasn’t forthcoming with the entire story in 2002, Paterno and possibly, maybe others shouldn’t have lost their careers. McQueary is the second most responsible for the actions after March 1 2002, and if this is how Penn State wants to show they are committed to a brighter tomorrow, well they need to remove the dark cloud that follows them in the form of McQueary.

  13. gb4mn0 says: Nov 11, 2011 5:53 PM

    What is so pathetic about this is his POS father is trying thru the media to set him up as a sympathetic figure without mentioning once the boy that was victimized.

    Thank you to all you veterans!

  14. icanonlysay says: Nov 11, 2011 5:55 PM

    I can see keeping a true wistleblower, but this is not the case. His reporting what he saw did not bring out any investigation and he very well knew that. Accepting this silence makes him just as guilty as the rest and he should be fired.

  15. Deb says: Nov 11, 2011 6:21 PM

    Well, that makes sense. Their attorneys are telling them they can’t fire McQueary … now. But before this thing is over every person in the athletic department, every member of Paterno’s coaching staff, and perhaps everyone in the school administration–if they knew about any of this–will be gone. That includes McQueary.

    He’s not a whistleblower. He’s a grown man who failed to report a violent crime to authorities and knew no one else had either. That makes him culpable.

  16. wereinomaha says: Nov 11, 2011 6:23 PM

    Wow. I mean it’s a start, but it’s not enough! He needs to get his ass fired and put on trial for something! I don’t give a crap if he told his dad, any person who walks in on a rape and doesn’t stop it, is a criminal.

  17. stairwayto7 says: Nov 11, 2011 6:33 PM

    Move to Montana and work at WalMart! PENN STATE FANS DO NOT WANT YOU! WE ARE…PENN STATE!

  18. frug says: Nov 11, 2011 6:33 PM

    I don’t if it’s the school, his lawyer, the DA or all of the above who are telling this guy to stay quiet, but I think everyone, including McQueary, would be better off if McQueary were allowed to tell his side of the story.

  19. polegojim says: Nov 11, 2011 6:43 PM

    @ frug –
    I don’t want to hear about who he told.
    I don’t want to hear about how his superiors failure to act.
    I don’t want to hear about his phone call to Paterno.

    What I WANT to hear about is WHY… WHY didn’t he take a CLEAT, BAT, FIST, CHAIR, or ANY OTHER freaking heavy object to the head of Sandusky when he walked in on that… instead of slinking away and letting it continue???

    Stopping the sexual assault of a child would have cleared him of ANY kind of lawsuit.

    At the VERY least… YELL OUT at the top of your lungs… run and get SECURITY…ON-THE-SPOT, right then and there.

    That’s the only thing I want to hear. The rest would be an excuse.

  20. 6ball says: Nov 11, 2011 6:45 PM




    I guess in your mind a win over Nebraska will cure everything.


  21. imaduffer says: Nov 11, 2011 6:50 PM

    Men you can trust, they were Penn State.

  22. wereinomaha says: Nov 11, 2011 7:10 PM


    McQueary has no side! Bottom line is, he didn’t stop Sandusky from raping a 10 year old boy, I don’t care if he told his Dad and then the head coach, he witnessed it and then walked away. How sick is that? He didn’t even yell or say stop. He mad eye contact, and walked away. This young boy was probably relieved because he saw a man come in and probably thought his hell was over, but then the man walked out and left a little boy in there with a pedophile. That right there is digusting and he deserves much worse than a leave, he needs to get fired, and even that’s not enough. He makes me sick.

  23. frug says: Nov 11, 2011 7:19 PM

    @polegojim and wereinomaha

    The questions are you talking about are the same one’s that I want answered, and that’s why I think it would be better if he could explain what he did (and didn’t do) and why.

  24. bcjim says: Nov 11, 2011 7:21 PM

    What kind of sick freak assaults a child in a place where he is likely to be witnessed? Not only was he committing a heinous crime against a child and nature, he was practically asking to be caught. He seems not only to have been a perverted sicko, but an exhibitionist as well.

  25. frug says: Nov 11, 2011 7:21 PM

    And don’t mean to thread jack, but I don’t think anyone posted about his yet,

    McQueary is now in protective custody in a secluded undisclosed location not in State College.

  26. ibjodi says: Nov 11, 2011 7:29 PM

    McQueary’s father is just as bad as his son. He knew what his “friend” did and did nothing also!!! Yea waste tax payers dollars putting this POS in protective custody. Not worth a dime in my eyes. I would like to see the victims talk to him and see what he says to them when they ask him why he didn’t stop it.

  27. rankithnj says: Nov 11, 2011 7:29 PM

    I don’t know PA law but isn’t an act omission a criminal offense. I think sexual assault warrants more than telling your boss. He didn’t just touch someone inappropriately, he sodomized him.

  28. dkhhuey says: Nov 11, 2011 7:50 PM

    This man is the ultimate coward and has been so for over 10 years. I use to think Mike Vick was the most vile person on the planet but I have moved him to number 2 and placed this coward in the number 1 slot. The fact that he walked out while a disgusting old man was anally raping a 10 year old boy, did not lift one finger that night to help that night, and then remained silent for 10 years after he knew nothing was going to happen to Sandusky – there is just no word that I can think of that describes how low of a human being this coward is

  29. 12is3times4 says: Nov 11, 2011 7:52 PM

    tjg25: “I’d have put a permanent end to Sandusky’s terror and the 12 jurors at my “murder” trial would have clapped for me as they acquitted me.”

    Don’t be so sure about that last part. A jury trial is always a crapshoot. Get stuck with a jury of 12 idiots or Paterno worshipers and you may still be screwed.

    That said, I’d do it anyway. I might even just plead guilty to the murder charge and take full ownership of the deed. Besides, if the state would throw someone in prison for killing a child rapist in the act, that says more about the state than it does me.

  30. artisan3m says: Nov 11, 2011 8:02 PM

    What are the odds of catching a grown man raping a child in the clubhouse showers ~ then playing 18-holes of golf with the rapist just nine days later? McQueary did ~ in the same foursome with Sandusky. Remember, McQueary did not attempt to intervene when he saw it was Sandusky raping the boy. It was so heinous that he had to report the incident ~ but you play a round of golf with the perp in less than two weeks? WTF? I’m telling you, folks, there is more at play here than has been either reported or uncovered. And d0n’t be mislead by this “whistleblower” protection ~ that is an intentional diversion to buy time by university officials ~ and keep McQueary on a short leash, probably on advice of legal counsel.

  31. 12is3times4 says: Nov 11, 2011 8:26 PM

    artisan3m: “I’m telling you, folks, there is more at play here than has been either reported or uncovered.”

    As I’ve said here before, Sandusky probably had collected plenty of dirt on Paterno and his program in the 20+ years he was there prior to 1998. He also knew how much value Penn State put in its All-American image, and how easily shattered it would be even by garden-variety stuff like cheating, recruiting violations etc.

    In short, a perfect environment for blackmail.

    Dollars to donuts, that’s at least a big part of why Paterno kept Sandusky around, and McQueary never ratted him out. They were afraid he knew too much.

  32. 187onsandusky says: Nov 11, 2011 8:49 PM

    bcjim says:
    Nov 11, 2011 7:21 PM
    What kind of sick freak assaults a child in a place where he is likely to be witnessed? Not only was he committing a heinous crime against a child and nature, he was practically asking to be caught. He seems not only to have been a perverted sicko, but an exhibitionist as well.


    The reason he was using the showers at the football complex was because it was the first Friday of Spring Break 2002. The town is dead at that time of year.

    If McQueary had not stopped by to drop off some new training shoes he would not have had this opportunity to show the world what a pitiful man is trapped in that big body.

  33. Deb says: Nov 11, 2011 9:14 PM

    bcjim says:

    What kind of sick freak assaults a child in a place where he is likely to be witnessed? Not only was he committing a heinous crime against a child and nature, he was practically asking to be caught. He seems not only to have been a perverted sicko, but an exhibitionist as well.
    Since he was only seen twice in all those years and several victims say they were assaulted there, it probably wasn’t as public as it sounds. Child abusers use lures to gain a child’s confidence–and get him into a one-on-one situation. Apparently Sandusky used the chance to visit the Penn State campus and the football players’ locker rooms. Just heard on CNN that his lawyer said he only showered with boys and nothing more. His defense is that it’s common practice for those involved in athletics to shower together. (No, I’m not making this up.) He probably used a similar line on the boys to get them into the shower. These monsters are master manipulators.

  34. klizrobinson says: Nov 11, 2011 9:50 PM

    blowtorch4jesus says:
    Nov 11, 2011 4:58 PM
    Since I can not even remotely comprehend how anyone but another pedophile would see a child being raped and not stop it if not kill the monster with their barehands as I’m sure most would at least think about, it’s open to speculation why he didn’t stop it, it’s also open to speculation as to how long he watched this rape, and why he reported it but went no further as he was at the very least morally obligated to when he saw nothing being done. Could it be that he actually is as sick a man as Sandusky and got off watching Sandusky rape this child?


    I was surprised no one else said this yet. I don’t believe there is any way someone could WITNESS something this horrible, and not call the police at the very least unless they weren’t totally against it. I’m sorry.

    The more I think about it the more I realize there is no way. NO WAY I could see something like that and not whoop that old mans ass myself. I don’t even have kids yet, and I feel disgusted. These weren’t college kids. They were little children! To witness such an act, and bullshit about reporting it, hell even walking away exposes either another pervert, or someone with major issues. There is no drug on this planet that I could have taken that night that would have allowed me to sleep after that.

    There is a special place in hell for these men, particularly the one who witnessed it, and kept going. How dare you leave a child in a predicament like that?!

  35. ranillon says: Nov 11, 2011 11:13 PM

    Wow, I guess it’s pretty obvious that when anyone mentions “child abuse” then suddenly if you are in anyway involved and don’t go completely Rambo (if not Hannibal Lector) on the guy then you are a shameful coward who deserves almost as bad a punishment as the actual rapist. Sheesh, it’s easy to to thump your chest and act all macho and insulted, but the real world isn’t that simple.

    One, no one who is not actually paid (like a cop) to perform the job should EVER be required to put his life in jeopardy to any extent, even if it is to save someone else. Sure, no one should be called a hero if they do so, but the fact that they did not does not automatically make someone basically as bad as the criminal. Rmember that the law doesn’t require you to do ANYTHING in such circumstances beyond (and maybe not even this) report the incident.

    Two, he did notify the authorities, even if he went for advice from his father first. Beyond that, what else was he supposed to do? Buy a gun and shoot the guy? He had no authority over him, not ability to influence his access or actions legally. So, what is he supposed to do after that? Remember, anything he might have tried could have easily gotten HIM in trouble if not in jail. It was just his word against that of a well respected ex-coach’s. How much effect do you think he could have had?

    I am certainly not saying his actions are commendable or that he should get a medal. He should even be criticized for not being more brave. However, the statements I see above are clearly just an excuse to find yet another scapegoat and feed our sense of outrage (and indirectly tell ourselves that we are so obviously morally superior). It’s selfish and irrational, not to mention tarnishing all involved — INCLUDING the victim!

    It is also clear that since it’s about child abuse apparently any outrage is justified, not matter how much it might warp or destroy our legal system and the principles on which it is based. Am I supposed to believe that this attitude of “burn them all” would be here like this if we were talking about “mere” brutal assault or murder? Where is the unyielding outrage when someone gets killed? A terrible crime is a terrible crime; shouldn’t we be irrationally angry at all terrible crimes — or NOT irrationally angry at all of them?

    We have rules and laws about what a person is expected to do in such instances and he did what he was supposed to do. The fact that he didn’t do more is regretable and worthy of criticism, but nothing like the “he’s as bad as the abuser” scorn I see here. Leave your outrage for the actual perp.

  36. atchick says: Nov 11, 2011 11:47 PM


    Even if he reported it that night, no one’s job should’ve been saved. Why do you think Sandusky was told he wouldn’t be the next head coach? Look at the time line. The complacency of this program existed before 2002, and continued after to create a legacy PS football will be hard pressed to recover from.

  37. lemmam says: Nov 12, 2011 2:34 AM

    “man up” and “take responsibility” two terms never in mcqueary’s modus operandi

  38. spoiledbratswhosuck says: Nov 12, 2011 10:06 AM

    The Trustees, the Admin are all culpable. A HUGE CESSPOOL where protecting the football program was more important than protecting children. The PSU campus was a safe haven for Mr Sandusky. I hope the FBI will get involved since taking children across states lines is a federal crime not to mention witnessing sex acts with children could be aiding and abetting.
    What happened to DA Gricar? He is still missing.

  39. mbg19 says: Nov 12, 2011 11:48 AM


    I have to disagree with you that no ones job should have been saved, you mention the timeline and I agree that Sandusky was told to retire, but to me that shows that someone, and I speculate Paterno, decided he wasn’t of moral character to be in the program. Those charges in 98 were brought to the DA, and he wasn’t charged, not as a cover up, but because the DA didn’t feel he had enough evidence to convict. Remember, beyond a reasonable doubt is necassary. It was unfortunate that the DA wasn’t able to bring a strong enough case in 1998/99 against Sandusky! In regards to 2002, if and only if Paterno wasn’t given the entire story does he deserve to keep his job. I say this because if he was told what he said in the indictment I can understand why he went to his bosses, instead of the police immediately. He had a history with Sandusky, one that only 3 years prior went from very close, and respected to Sandusky being removed from the program. It can be argued as slander or defamation because Paterno didn’t witness the event, now my biggest problem with Paterno is that over the several months he (to our knowledge) didn’t follow up to see where the investigation was, and what the status of Sandusky was. That to me (assuming he never followed up) is grounds for dismissal, but if he inquired and was lied to, then he doesn’t deserve to austracising that is occurring.
    I try and look at this objectively, as if I was trying or defending a case against any of these people, and these are the scenarios that I have come up with. Also, 46 or 66 years of a moral commitment to the University, players, academics and the community weigh in on my thought process.

  40. morristhewise says: Nov 12, 2011 11:49 AM

    Painful memories will result in thousands of lawsuits. Many colleges will declare bankruptcy as former football players demand compensation.

  41. mbg19 says: Nov 12, 2011 12:03 PM


    I understand what point you are trying to make but. I do believe you are defending the wrong person. I would like to think that I would go all Rambo on the guy, and if I’m ever in that situation I hope I am physically and mentally able to do just that. At the end of the day, every human being, every man has a duty to protect those who can’t protect themselves. We all have the responsibility to stand up for someone, weather a child, a handicap, the elderly etc who are physically or mentally unable to stand up for themselves. The biggest problem I have with McQueary is not that he didn’t bash Sanduskys head in, or mutilate him or whatever, my biggest problem is that he made a choice not to defend, or protect someone that was unable to protect themselves. He left a child in immediate and imminent danger, he allowed a grown ”man” to continue to abuse and harm someone that was defenseless.
    You mention that it would “his word against a respected ex-coaches word” and I have to ask: what better way to ensure that it isn’t a he said/she said by taking the victim immediately to the authorities, or even the victims own home and have the authorities meet you there? Also, do you think the victim would be more likely to tell a cop e dry thing that has gone on if he feels that someone out there is on his side?

    We all have the responsibility to protect those who cannot do it themselves, and leaving this child in imminent and immediate danger,to me is inexcusable, at the least what he and any of us should have done is remove the child from that situation.

  42. mbg19 says: Nov 12, 2011 12:10 PM

    Correction to above post, sorry auto correct.

    Do you think the victim is more likely to tell a cop *everything that has gone on if he feels someone is on his side?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!