My two cents

[jsshap]

All I have read is the article and the 16 page thread below, so I dont have a lot of substantive thoughts on this new issue. But I was really surprised by all of the "bfd it's only weed" themed posts and (to a lesser extent) the posts about how this is only a su policy not an NCAA one. I think Moqui made this point 4x but many seem to miss it...it's not a question of whether pot is a big deal. It would not matter if the su policy said you must use a blue pen rather than a black pen in your finals and if you use a black pen you are ineligible. Ineligible is ineligible. So while I get (sort of) the vitriolic reaction of many, I am surprised there is apparently such little disdain for the possibility that someone in school admin knowingly looked other way at ineligible status. Sure the timing is not coincidental, but that alone does not mean it's not harmful. And I am glad to see those far more knowledgeable than me think this will not be significant, but I think that those who summarily dismiss it for above reasons are being a bit short sighted. Masons comment seems spot on - if the report is accurate much depends on the who.

 

[jr4750]

Good point. And what's all this talk about Thamel? I missed that? What does he have on us? I thought he was working uk...

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Jsshap - what about having the punishment fit the crime? J-walking vs murder.

How about this hypothetical. What if they are checking for illegal drugs. Then they find a player who is on hard drugs and some who are on weed. They then dish out different punishments, although this wasn't spelled out in the policy. Then years later the person treated more harshly (Billy E) thinks back on what might have been and says if only he was given the chances he saw others given.

So, what if it is just a poorly written internal policy by SU? Seems like they could have avoided everything by ultimately including a human element/review. But who knows at this stage that they really didn't? These news services are really more about getting a click worthy story these days than they are about getting an accurate story.

 

[br801]

Jsshap - what about having the punishment fit the crime? J-walking vs murder.

How about this hypothetical. What if they are checking for illegal drugs. Then they find a player who is on hard drugs and some who are on weed. They then dish out different punishments, although this wasn't spelled out in the policy. Then years later the person treated more harshly (Billy E) thinks back on what might have been and says if only he was given the chances he saw others given.

So, what if it is just a poorly written internal policy by SU? Seems like they could have avoided everything by ultimately including a human element/review. But who knows at this stage that they really didn't? These news services are really more about getting a click worthy story these days than they are about getting an accurate story.

Here's another factor to consider. As an internal policy, how can anyone outside the university know exactly what the policy was at any point in time? There is a good chance the specifics of the policy have been changed over the years.

 

[ottodaorange]

All I have read is the article and the 16 page thread below, so I dont have a lot of substantive thoughts on this new issue. But I was really surprised by all of the "bfd it's only weed" themed posts and (to a lesser extent) the posts about how this is only a su policy not an NCAA one. I think Moqui made this point 4x but many seem to miss it...it's not a question of whether pot is a big deal. It would not matter if the su policy said you must use a blue pen rather than a black pen in your finals and if you use a black pen you are ineligible. Ineligible is ineligible. So while I get (sort of) the vitriolic reaction of many, I am surprised there is apparently such little disdain for the possibility that someone in school admin knowingly looked other way at ineligible status. Sure the timing is not coincidental, but that alone does not mean it's not harmful. And I am glad to see those far more knowledgeable than me think this will not be significant, but I think that those who summarily dismiss it for above reasons are being a bit short sighted. Masons comment seems spot on - if the report is accurate much depends on the who.

 

[jsshap]

Jsshap - what about having the punishment fit the crime? J-walking vs murder.

How about this hypothetical. What if they are checking for illegal drugs. Then they find a player who is on hard drugs and some who are on weed. They then dish out different punishments, although this wasn't spelled out in the policy. Then years later the person treated more harshly (Billy E) thinks back on what might have been and says if only he was given the chances he saw others given.

So, what if it is just a poorly written internal policy by SU? Seems like they could have avoided everything by ultimately including a human element/review. But who knows at this stage that they really didn't? These news services are really more about getting a click worthy story these days than they are about getting an accurate story.

To BR801's comment below -- I know very little about the NCAA world. I expect if an inquiry is ongoing (1) part of that inquiry is what was the policy at the time, that is easy to ascertain and (2) whether under the then-existing policy the player was ineligible.

To your comment -- thats a good point and I get that. But I am not sure it matters what the policy could have included. Again, just on the surface, if a player should have been ineligible under the black letter policy (i.e. "any player who tests positive for a banned substance shall be deemed ineligible until..."), and (1) the player was allowed to play (2) the player was never told of the positive result (which speaks louder than anything to the notion that the school did not care) and (3) JB was not told about the violation/ineligibility, then to me that is a concern, regardless of whether in the end, some reasonable judgment was used in deciding the type of sanction that was appropriate. Of course its a far bigger concern if the player was a significant one (or it was during a particularly significant year).

I am not trying to be a doom and gloomer here. When knowledgeable folks say "0%" chance of losing national title, "this will probably amount to nothing," etc., I pretty much take that to the bank, I just think the reasoning some have used to dismiss this out of hand -- and the lack of any real dissatisfaction with SU even if the above scenario is accurate -- is lacking in some respects. In the employment world, its a simple truth that policies that are in place but are not followed are often far worse than having no policies at all.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Here's another factor to consider. As an internal policy, how can anyone outside the university know exactly what the policy was at any point in time? There is a good chance the specifics of the policy have been changed over the years.

With these stories using "sources" they don't need to know the policy. They can just say they have sources that say the internal policy was violated. The journalist not only gets an easy article but they also get a much easier way to say outrageous things. Disgruntled or regretful ex-players can then be used as sources for all kinds of accusations.

For instance, in my hypothetical, they could have used Billy E as the ex-player and he could have said something along the lines of "I know there were a lot of players who did stuff and they still got to play. They violated the policy and played but I didn't". And Billy E may not really even know the whole policy. But by referencing sources they can skirt the whole issue.

But since SU self reported something, it could be that they found something that they wanted changed in their internal policy. Their internal policy may have been worded poorly and they acted on substance over style, adjusted their internal policy and reported the infraction.

 

[MaxwellCuse]

Re: Thamel...

Pete Thamel and a Times team were digging around SU back in late November, early December in the aftermath of the Bernie Fine allegations. Bees said at the time that he was quite concerned about the mere fact that Thamel & Co. were sniffing around and speculated that if there was further dirt -- and Bees was clear that it didn't necessarily have to be dirt related to the Fine investigation -- Thamel would find it. So it wasn't Thamel, but rather than Robinson and Forde, who decided to exploit the drug violations. Doesn't mean that the NY Times isn't on to something else. As Bees said in November, the Fine allegations, even if false, were potentrially bad news for SU because they could open Pandora's Box. Exhibit A is this Pat Forde story. More to come?

 

[jncuse]

I think the best we can hope for is that SU consistently chose to interpret and act on its policy based on the drug involved. It then becomes an issue of whether the policy was poorly defined or poorly interpreted, but not a situation of outright ignorance of the policy.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I think the best we can hope for is that SU consistently chose to interpret and act on its policy based on the drug involved. It then becomes an issue of whether the policy was poorly defined or poorly interpreted, but not a situation of outright ignorance of the policy.

It would be great to see if that is what happened. The frustrating part is if SU acted in that way, which in my mind would be an excellent result, it would not be nearly as newsworthy.

This new shoot first journalism is getting annoying. It seems to reward lazy journalism. Don't search out all the facts or the story might not be as headline worthy. Plus get it out there quick and you can extend/control the news cycle.

 

[rrlbees]

Re: Thamel...

Pete Thamel and a Times team were digging around SU back in late November, early December in the aftermath of the Bernie Fine allegations. Bees said at the time that he was quite concerned about the mere fact that Thamel & Co. were sniffing around and speculated that if there was further dirt -- and Bees was clear that it didn't necessarily have to be dirt related to the Fine investigation -- Thamel would find it. So it wasn't Thamel, but rather than Robinson and Forde, who decided to exploit the drug violations. Doesn't mean that the NY Times isn't on to something else. As Bees said in November, the Fine allegations, even if false, were potentrially bad news for SU because they could open Pandora's Box. Exhibit A is this Pat Forde story. More to come?

It only makes sense that any school would not want people snooping around. One thing can lead to another. Yahoo admitted the BF situation led to this. The fortunate thing is that we self reported this long before anyone did any snooping for anything.

 

[br801]

To BR801's comment below -- I know very little about the NCAA world. I expect if an inquiry is ongoing (1) part of that inquiry is what was the policy at the time, that is easy to ascertain and (2) whether under the then-existing policy the player was ineligible.

To your comment -- thats a good point and I get that. But I am not sure it matters what the policy could have included. Again, just on the surface, if a player should have been ineligible under the black letter policy (i.e. "any player who tests positive for a banned substance shall be deemed ineligible until..."), and (1) the player was allowed to play (2) the player was never told of the positive result (which speaks louder than anything to the notion that the school did not care) and (3) JB was not told about the violation/ineligibility, then to me that is a concern, regardless of whether in the end, some reasonable judgment was used in deciding the type of sanction that was appropriate. Of course its a far bigger concern if the player was a significant one (or it was during a particularly significant year).

I am not trying to be a doom and gloomer here. When knowledgeable folks say "0%" chance of losing national title, "this will probably amount to nothing," etc., I pretty much take that to the bank, I just think the reasoning some have used to dismiss this out of hand -- and the lack of any real dissatisfaction with SU even if the above scenario is accurate -- is lacking in some respects. In the employment world, its a simple truth that policies that are in place but are not followed are often far worse than having no policies at all.

I get where you're coming from and agree with what you are saying. I guess what troubles me is that I'm turning on the radio or TV and hearing things like "SU allowed at least 10 ineligible players to practice and play after they had violated the school's drug policy." At this point, based on the Yahoo story, we just don't know enough of the facts to be able to conclude something that definitive. And that bothers me.

 

[Orangezoo]

This clearly has a witch hunt theme to it for starters. The thing that bothers me the most is the logic of the whole thing. Like the fine scandal we are discussing adherence to a policy .. or lack of a policy. ESPN had no clear policy other than report what you believe when the Fine ordeal broke. The actions by ESPN led to the chain reaction of events including Fine's firing, Boeheim's comments that led to the current lawsuit and now the further reporter investigation of SU's drug policies. Much like ESPN jumped the gun, Yahoo did as well. So why is their no measurement for damaging accusations highlighting a basic self reported violation that could turn out to be nothing? In turn its a matter of having a policy vs not. Its ok that Terrence Jones looks stoned half the games he plays, likely due to UK not having one of these expensive policies. Its a major issue only because SU has a policy not because of what 10 student athletes may have done. SU is now being lit up for only two violations of their policy.. with the other generalizations being nothing but hyperbole to enhance the Yahoo report. ESPN/Yahoo will never again be questioned for whether they have a policy regarding the damage they would cause before releasing a story. Its probably because they have no policy.. as long as they have consent from the sources (whoever they may be) to advise that they have such sources and hence a story. I know not of the media enough to say I am right... but how is this not on a similar plane? Whats to stop every local reporter from doing a similar local investigation at other universities? It seems of recent the flood gates are open and moral boundaries are no more. The thing I truly hope is that names are not revealed, as depending upon where a student athlete is today - the damage could be irreperable. I hope Davis/Lang don't see a dime. Although Im sure they were not the most relevant contributors, I am sure they were interviewed and gave statements and possible leads, who knows, maybe even a side deal or two if they get their settlement through.

Thats my rant.. and while I think not adhering to a policy is wrong.. not having a policy is worse. If this were 30 some players over ten years.. thats a problem.. this is much smaller in scale IMO and borderline not a major news story worthy.

 

[jncuse]

It only makes sense that any school would not want people snooping around. One thing can lead to another. Yahoo admitted the BF situation led to this. The fortunate thing is that we self reported this long before anyone did any snooping for anything.

My question is what was the driver or trigger behind the decision to self report.

 

[rrlbees]

My question is what was the driver or trigger behind the decision to self report.

Good question.

 

[BlackKnight76]

If I remember correctly, Yahoo! announced that they were looking at Syracuse following the bogus point-shaving stuff. I know they specifically mentioned Fine, but I wonder if this goes all the way back to last winter.

 

[pfister1]

So, what if it is just a poorly written internal policy by SU? Seems like they could have avoided everything by ultimately including a human element/review. But who knows at this stage that they really didn't? These news services are really more about getting a click worthy story these days than they are about getting an accurate story.

Policies are not written in stone tablets...they can be changed as soon as one realizes that it is poorly written. Including as soon as they realize that they don't really want to enforce it....at that point the policy should have been rewritten to give them the discretion to give people a pass in the situations they wanted to provide the passes.

 

[pfister1]

Good question.

Very possible that its a number of things. Could have gone something like this.

-Baylor penalties are announced and part of the rationale for the discipline against Baylor being that they failed to follow their own internal policies.
-Someone at SU sees this and eventually comes to the realization that they have a similar situation with respect to failing to follow internal policies.
- Folks at SU spend some time debating.....on one hand this isn't Baylor we don't have all of the attendant and aggravating circumstances that existed at Baylor...yet we still have a failure to follow our own policies... Do we report, or don't we report???
-Eventually other events unfold (maybe its the Devo incident, Fab's off-court last year, the point shaving allegation or even something that occured in another sport) and SU says ... we had better report. In a vacuum this isn't serious, however if it comes out as part of something else and we haven't ackowledged it it will look much worse than if we've already acknowledged it.