Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jsshap, post: 214798, member: 1459"]
To BR801's comment below -- I know very little about the NCAA world.  I [U]expect[/U] 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, [B]if[/B] a player should have been ineligible under the black letter policy (i.e. "any player who tests positive for a banned substance [B]shall[/B] 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.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?