If we do indeed lose Sheppard and Ealey... | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

If we do indeed lose Sheppard and Ealey...

Phillymoose said:
No - that's about right. They should definitely miss half of the remaining games this year.
Expand...
Yeah we should cut off their left arms in a public square too...I mean they smoked weed for chrissake! Twice! It's the most dangerous drug this side of the Atlantic...
 
blizz said:
Yeah we should cut off their left arms in a public square too...I mean they smoked weed for chrissake! Twice! It's the most dangerous drug this side of the Atlantic...
Expand...
The point is that if you have a rule, enforce it or change it. IF there is a drug policy a schedule 1 drug cannot be ignored.
 
jekelish said:
I appreciate the goal of having a policy...but when the NCAA doesn't require a written, department-wide policy, it's utterly foolish to use one. You can still have private, program-to-program policies wherein each coach sets down the rules and expectations and deals with it in his own way. Boeheim could have a different policy than Shafer, etc. That's what most schools actually do. That's what the school I work for does with athletes. But as soon as you announce you have a department drug policy, it comes under NCAA jurisdiction to make sure you're following it to the letter.

It's just idiotic on a number of levels.
Expand...

I agree.

They should at least change the rules with regard to weed, it will pretty much be legal everywhere in the next 5-10 years.

Ohio State had their QB drive drunk, which IMO is a much more egregious and far more dangerous act than peeing some tainted urine into a cup and he only got a 1 game suspension. Technically, these kids didn't even break the law.
 
It's funny how all the reporters went on to write about how Shafer thinks the drug policy is right and good. From his presser it sounded like he was talking about the policy to not discuss personal reasons kids get suspended and that he was mad about who ever leaked the details.
 
TheCusian said:
It's funny how all the reporters went on to write about how Shafer thinks the drug policy is right and good. From his presser it sounded like he was talking about the policy to not discuss personal reasons kids get suspended and that he was mad about who ever leaked the details.
Expand...

He was talking about how he thinks the drug policy is right and good.
 
Crusty said:
The point is that if you have a rule, enforce it or change it. IF there is a drug policy a schedule 1 drug cannot be ignored.
Expand...

i agree if you have a rule you enforce it. but the punishment they came up with is ridiculous. It goes from a (1st) offense, no game suspension to a (2nd) offense 50% of the schedule? that's crazy to me.
 
Nick44 said:
It's not in the police blotter so hopefully no one was knocked out for throwing a snowball and I haven't seen anyone drag a large screen television by its cord out of Ryan Nassib's apartment yet. So all good signs.
Expand...
1421831677382
 
rrlbees said:
He was talking about how he thinks the drug policy is right and good.
Expand...

Seemed more ambiguous to me watching it.
 
Whitey23 said:
I think if they were gone Shafer would have said so. Also, still might need juco depth regardless.
Expand...
Does anybody know what the rules call for? What do the players have to do to regain active status.
 
rrlbees said:
He was talking about how he thinks the drug policy is right and good.
Expand...
Well if it includes pot, as I assume it does - he is (am trying really hard not to use the word idiot) out of touch.
 
blizz said:
Yeah we should cut off their left arms in a public square too...I mean they smoked weed for chrissake! Twice! It's the most dangerous drug this side of the Atlantic...
Expand...
I don't think that is the issue. Smoking pot is against the rules. I don't want to be dealing with people who under the influence of pot. Like my Dentist or my eye surgeon.
They knowingly broke the rules and let down their teammates. There are all sorts on rules on conduct - like Lombardi Time. It's a team thing.
 
They need to change the rule (pot) or eliminate the rule. Once done, the new rule - or lack thereof - should be applied retroactively to Sheppard and Ealey.
 
Toga said:
They need to change the rule (pot) or eliminate the rule. Once done, the new rule - or lack thereof - should be applied retroactively to Sheppard and Ealey.
Expand...

Preach on, Wooderson!
 

Attachments

  • image-4211278734.jpg
    image-4211278734.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 82
blizz said:
Yeah we should cut off their left arms in a public square too...I mean they smoked weed for chrissake! Twice! It's the most dangerous drug this side of the Atlantic...
Expand...

Maybe I should have emphasized the 'THIS YEAR' part. The snark indicator was apparently turned off.
 
jekelish said:
I appreciate the goal of having a policy...but when the NCAA doesn't require a written, department-wide policy, it's utterly foolish to use one. You can still have private, program-to-program policies wherein each coach sets down the rules and expectations and deals with it in his own way. Boeheim could have a different policy than Shafer, etc. That's what most schools actually do. That's what the school I work for does with athletes. But as soon as you announce you have a department drug policy, it comes under NCAA jurisdiction to make sure you're following it to the letter.

It's just idiotic on a number of levels.
Expand...

At the risk of moving further into wrong-boardness, based on my understanding of the violation, I do not understand the sanction received (vacated wins).

To my understanding (which could be wrong), Syracuse's policy required three failed drug tests before a player would be suspended. The violation was that JB was supposed to contact parents or legal guardians in cases of a failed drug test, which he in practice would only do based on his own discretion.

I believe I heard that no player had ever actually failed three tests, so while I can see the need for the NCAA to provide some form of sanction for the school to enforce a policy if they chose to have one, how can vacated wins based on the use of ineligible players be it?

To what standard would these players have been ineligible? Not the NCAA's as they did not require testing, and not to Syracuse's own policy.

Punish the coaches or folks within the departments responsible for the enforcement, but to vacate wins just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
174,639
Messages
5,272,145
Members
6,196
Latest member
NickMar

Online statistics

Members online
236
Guests online
7,146
Total visitors
7,382
Totals may include hidden visitors.


P
Top Bottom