The New York Times interviews Jerry Sandusky. Check out the video. I think he comes off as both beaten and deceptive.

Responding to a question about his response to Bob Costas asking him directly whether he is "sexually attracted to young boys," he fails to answer the question a second time. He admits to being "attracted." He doesn't say he isn't sexually attracted and his lawyer has to jump in to help him.

Many have speculated that he was forced to retire in 1999 because of previous allegations raised about his conduct and that Paterno and other administrators knew about them. But Sandusky indicates he retired because he knew he wasn't going to be considered for the head coaching job when Paterno finally retired.

That is consistant with the story I've been told, that Paterno told Sandusky that he needed to choose between all the time he was spending helping to run the charity he founded and being a full-time football coach.

The speculation by many that Paterno and Penn State administrators knew about Jerry's "problem" and covered it up remains rank and based on nothing more than bad-faith assumptions. So far, the only evidence of such a "cover-up" is based on the word of Mike McQueary the man who says he saw Sandusky raping a kid in a shower and did nothing to stop it. He says he told Paterno what he "saw." The New York Times reporter is smart to say that McQueary told Paterno "some version" of what he saw. Because Paterno denies being told specifics by McQueary. And so do other Penn State administrators who have now been charged with perjury.

I don't think Sandusky is helping himself very much with these interviews, but this one wasn't very hard-hitting. I would've have asked this lover of young people why he thinks all these kids and grown-ups are lying about him. I would have also asked him if he ever offered to take a polygraph test and I would have offered him the opportunity. I doubt very much his lawyer would countenance that.