Here's what I think about this whole scandal...

[A Clockwork Orange]

Because all of you care .

I definitely think players smoked pot (duh) and I could care less that they did. If they were caught by the cops that would be one thing. They're college students, and most college students use pot.

I also think that many tested positive for pot and per a university policy were breaking rules for playing a sport. Whether you think it's ridiculous or not is 100% beside the point, because it's a policy and is there to be enforced. So this arguing over the policy being stupid or that everyone smokes pot is irrelevant. The policy is there, if players broke it they should be punished.

Frankly, the policy sounds pretty lenient, which is good. Perhaps it should be even more lenient.

What this really comes down to is whether these players definitely broke a policy and shouldn't have been playing, but people in power decided that they would make exceptions for whatever reason. If that's the case, and it happened to be JB or Jake, or Doc Gross that broke the policy then they should definitely be punished for it.

That's the definition of lack of institutional control. An institution puts a policy in place that it willfully breaks because they don't want to lose more games, etc...

Personally I feel like all of what was reported did happen, JB did know, but there were some mitigating circumstances, or shades of grey that made JB feel like this player should still be playing. I'm hoping those mitigating circumstances weren't "he's our best player, he needs to play," and is instead "he's a model student, a good person, and deserves another chance." That would still be breaking the policy but with logic I could understand.

With that said, if that's the way you plan on treating a drug policy, why not re-visit and change the drug policy to better reflect that attitude? If it's not mandatory, and the NCAA doesn't police it why not craft a policy that fits your personal beliefs as coach/administrators?

People who are babbling about "stupid policy this, and pot should be legalized that," are really missing the whole point of why this is an issue. It has nothing to do with the policy or with pot being legalized, it has to do with SU not following its own policy that it created.

 

[pfister1]

I disagree that the failure to observe this policy is the definition of "lack of institutional control". I think that concept is attached to a situation that leads to NCAA rules violations.

I don't believe that we have committed NCAA rules violations by allowing players that tested positive to play. In fact, as I understand it, a big part of the problem, is that the NCAA doesn't really take a position on what should happen to players that are found to be using drugs....rather it only takes a position on what should happen to players that test positive on the NCAA administered drug testing...which our players did not do.

Internal policies should be followed, or they should be eliminated. But antiquated policies exist, and are ignored, in every organization. I think the organization can make a collective decision to ignore its own policy, just as it can make the decision to modify its own policy. The only way I see this being a problem is if the policy was one that the AD endorsed but JB figured out a way to ignore/get around or one that the larger University itself implemented and felt was important, but the Athletic Department figured out a way to ignore/get around.

 

[iommi]

One question I have is everybody seems to think the violators smoked pot... How do we know that? Just curious...

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

I disagree that the failure to observe this policy is the definition of "lack of institutional control". I think that concept is attached to a situation that leads to NCAA rules violations.

I don't believe that we have committed NCAA rules violations by allowing players that tested positive to play. In fact, as I understand it, a big part of the problem, is that the NCAA doesn't really take a position on what should happen to players that are found to be using drugs....rather it only takes a position on what should happen to players that test positive on the NCAA administered drug testing...which our players did not do.

Internal policies should be followed, or they should be eliminated. But antiquated policies exist, and are ignored, in every organization. I think the organization can make a collective decision to ignore its own policy, just as it can make the decision to modify its own policy. The only way I see this being a problem is if the policy was one that the AD endorsed but JB figured out a way to ignore/get around or one that the larger University itself implemented and felt was important, but the Athletic Department figured out a way to ignore/get around.

This is obviously not true though (ignoring the policy) because while they ignored it, they could have to vacate wins, or face sanctions from the governing body. So the policy isn't antiquated because it's still in effect. So if you don't think it's lack of institutional control, would you then call it "willful violations"?

If SU was the only body to govern its drug policy I could understand your point, but it's not. The NCAA is involved, an entity separate from SU. If the NCAA wasn't involved I'd agree with your points, and they govern the policies that those schools set in place for themselves.

 

[pfister1]

This is obviously not true though (ignoring the policy) because while they ignored it, they could have to vacate wins, or face sanctions from the governing body. So the policy isn't antiquated because it's still in effect. So if you don't think it's lack of institutional control, would you then call it "willful violations"?

If SU was the only body to govern its drug policy I could understand your point, but it's not. The NCAA is involved, an entity separate from SU. If the NCAA wasn't involved I'd agree with your points, and they govern the policies that those schools set in place for themselves.

First, who has said that they could have to vacate wins or face sanctions over this other than some speculation here and in the media. I don't believe there is a real risk of that.

By antiquated, I mean one that they don't want to be bound to follow any longer, which seems clear from their decision not to follow it.

I'm not convinced that the NCAA is involved. I mean, I understand that SU reported the incidents, but I think that may have been entirely prophylactic in nature.

I don't see how the NCAA can penalize you for failing to follow a rule that you aren't required to have. Would they penalize us if we chose to implement a rule that all athletes had to acheive a 3.0 GPA to remain eligible then we ignored it and let someone with a 2.7 play. I don't think so.

If the NCAA had a policy that said anyone found to be taking certain recreational drugs is ineligible than I think we would have a problem having tested and found that to be the case and not acted. But from what I have been able to tell the NCAA rule only establishes consequences when a player tests positive to an NCAA administered drug test. It sounds kind of dumb, but could it be the case?

 

[jncuse]

The Scandal has been replaced by another scandal on ESPN front page. Illegal tweets by Michigan football players.

 

[TheOrangeBuddha]

One other note, simply failing ONE drug test does not equate to a player being ineligible for practice/games. The story totally speculates that the 10+ players failed a drug test and were ineligible. This isn't the policy at Syracuse.

 

[Fairlylegal]

Because all of you care .

...I could care less that they did.

Then why don't you care less? Caring less is less effort than caring.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

Then why don't you care less? Caring less is less effort than caring.

Thank you for your contribution to the thread, I appreciate the grammar lesson.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

First, who has said that they could have to vacate wins or face sanctions over this other than some speculation here and in the media. I don't believe there is a real risk of that.

By antiquated, I mean one that they don't want to be bound to follow any longer, which seems clear from their decision not to follow it.

I'm not convinced that the NCAA is involved. I mean, I understand that SU reported the incidents, but I think that may have been entirely prophylactic in nature.

I don't see how the NCAA can penalize you for failing to follow a rule that you aren't required to have. Would they penalize us if we chose to implement a rule that all athletes had to acheive a 3.0 GPA to remain eligible then we ignored it and let someone with a 2.7 play. I don't think so.

If the NCAA had a policy that said anyone found to be taking certain recreational drugs is ineligible than I think we would have a problem having tested and found that to be the case and not acted. But from what I have been able to tell the NCAA rule only establishes consequences when a player tests positive to an NCAA administered drug test. It sounds kind of dumb, but could it be the case?

These are good questions you bring up, and honestly I'm not sure anyone has the answers to these at this point. I think if the NCAA looked at SU as "willful violators" they would and could enforce sanctions. Now whether there is any precedent for the NCAA sanctioning teams for not following their own policies, I have no idea. It does seem pretty draconian when you look at that in print. The NCAA has done stranger things so I wouldn't put it past them, but that is the big question.