People are missing a key point about drug testing

[rrlbees]

While the NCAA may not say you NEED one, you do NEED one. It is being proactive vs. reactive.

Some are saying get rid of the school drug policy then there is never a compliance issue. But you need one to help assure that when the NCAA does their random drug tests at championship events, the likelihood of a player failing that should be greatly diminished or impossible (in theory). Would we rather have no drug policy at SU then have one of our teams competing in an NCAA championship and have a player fail a random drug test (they test at least 1 player each game/contest), thus vacating a win/wins or even a National Championship and everything that goes with it? The policy applies to all sports and we have plenty of teams competing in NCAA events and championships.

SU needs a drug policy and they have one. That policy has to include eligibility requirements to give it some teeth with the athletes. That policy also has to cover recreational drugs since the NCAA tests for recreational drugs whether people think weed is a big deal or not.

 

[hungrychuck]

The NCAA is misguided in testing for recreational drugs to begin with. Their concern should be performance enhancing drugs, period. Anyone who has ever smoked weed knows it is the opposite of a PED, unless the performance involves sex, listening to music or power snacking.

I'm actually more impressed when a team full of stoners wins something.

 

[Knicks411]

Hadn't thought about it like that. Pretty good points.

 

[AirForceOrange]

The problem isn't that SU had/doesn't have a drug policy, the problem is that SU had a policy it created and that it DID NOT enforce.

The idea of having/not having a drug policy is a separate issue.

 

[rrlbees]

The idea of having/not having a drug policy is a separate issue.

Um, that is what I was addressing.

 

[longislandcuse]

Cool, then we'll test for drugs to monitor our student athletes with no penalties attached, that way we dont violate any team rules that can get us in trouble.

 

[JOC44]

The idea that you would create a completely voluntary policy, not mandated by the NCAA, but which can get you into trouble if you don't follow it, and not have a big whopping provision that allows the AD to waive enforcement of the policy in his sole discretion is insane to me. SU needs better lawyers.

 

[PhatOrange]

The problem isn't that SU had/doesn't have a drug policy, the problem is that SU had a policy it created and that it DID NOT enforce.

The idea of having/not having a drug policy is a separate issue.

Syracuse definitely enforced their drug policy. I believe both Wrights were at one time or another suspended because they failed drug tests.

 

[PoppyHart]

Do they only test players who played in the NCAA tourney game? Or is Matt Lyde-Cajuste as likely to be pulled aside as Fabricio de Melo?

 

[AZOrange]

While the NCAA may not say you NEED one, you do NEED one. It is being proactive vs. reactive.

Some are saying get rid of the school drug policy then there is never a compliance issue. But you need one to help assure that when the NCAA does their random drug tests at championship events, the likelihood of a player failing that should be greatly diminished or impossible (in theory). Would we rather have no drug policy at SU then have one of our teams competing in an NCAA championship and have a player fail a random drug test (they test at least 1 player each game/contest), thus vacating a win/wins or even a National Championship and everything that goes with it? The policy applies to all sports and we have plenty of teams competing in NCAA events and championships.

SU needs a drug policy and they have one. That policy has to include eligibility requirements to give it some teeth with the athletes. That policy also has to cover recreational drugs since the NCAA tests for recreational drugs whether people think weed is a big deal or not.

The NCAA randomly tests at championship events? Without a drug policy?

 

[rrlbees]

The NCAA randomly tests at championship events? Without a drug policy?

That is their drug policy.

 

[rrlbees]

That is their drug policy.

Actually I believe they call it a drug testing program vs. policy.

 

[AZOrange]

That is their drug policy.

So they only test during championships? Or during the season? What is the point of having internal school policies if the NCAA is testing?

Also found this on the NCAA site: About 90 percent of Division I institutions have some type of regular-season testing. The severity of the penalty for a positive marijuana test, however, varies from institution to institution, and few require sitting an entire season.

 

[jsshap]

So they only test during championships? Or during the season? What is the point of having internal school policies if the NCAA is testing?

Also found this on the NCAA site: About 90 percent of Division I institutions have some type of regular-season testing. The severity of the penalty for a positive marijuana test, however, varies from institution to institution, and few require sitting an entire season.

It seems that the point would be to make sure you are in compliance when the NCAA testing is conducted.

 

[pfister1]

That is their drug policy.

And has been for a long time. I remember the occasional story about the poor kid who was pulled into the testing room immediately at the conclusion of an NCAA tournament game and then was stuck there segregated from his team because he had sweated out all of his excess fluids and couldn't piss enough to give a good sample for long periods of time.

So this should tell us that it is unlikely that any of the failed tests that didn't result in suspensions occurred in season, or at least near the end of a season with an NCAA tournament appearance. The program wouldn't take the risk that that player would be the one randomly selected at the end of the game, test positive and cause significant problems for the program.

Has anyone actually seen a written expression of SU's drug policy. I would be surprised if it said a player "MUST" be suspended upon the occurrence of a particular event. If it isn't mandated by someone else, it would be much more likely that the policy stated the penalty in a permissive manner. e.g. a second positive drug test may lead to discipline up to and including suspension from participation in practice and games. There are always circumstances to be considered and those circumstances oftentimes require policies to have some flexibility so that you aren't in a position of having to follow them in a situation where it is inequitable.

It's why the mandatory drug sentencing and three strikes type of rules generally suck.

 

[PoppyHart]

So they only test during championships? Or during the season? What is the point of having internal school policies if the NCAA is testing?

Also found this on the NCAA site: About 90 percent of Division I institutions have some type of regular-season testing. The severity of the penalty for a positive marijuana test, however, varies from institution to institution, and few require sitting an entire season.

Other than the service academies and BYU, I wonder which ones. ND is obviously strict, but not entire season strict. Ivys perhaps?

 

[rrlbees]

So they only test during championships? Or during the season? What is the point of having internal school policies if the NCAA is testing?

Also found this on the NCAA site: About 90 percent of Division I institutions have some type of regular-season testing. The severity of the penalty for a positive marijuana test, however, varies from institution to institution, and few require sitting an entire season.

I believe it is only during NCAA championships and events. Severity does differ by school, that is shown in that CBS article in another thread. Many do have sitting out requirements, it's a matter of how many violations.

 

[moqui]

proactive, and not just in the way most people think . . .

it's a fine line to walk - you might want to put a very liberal policy in place (no suspensions until a 4th positive) so that you can use any of the first three positives as a lever to push unwanted kids out of the program. you hope that it never happens, but the problem arises when you have to decide what to do when you get an active player with a 4th positive . . .

 

[AZOrange]

It seems that the point would be to make sure you are in compliance when the NCAA testing is conducted.

I get that part...I guess what I dont understand is why everyone keeps saying "the NCAA has no drug policy/standard" when they clearly test.

 

[rrlbees]

I get that part...I guess what I dont understand is why everyone keeps saying "the NCAA has no drug policy/standard" when they clearly test.

They do. I don't know why people say that either. They clearly test. They clearly define the drugs that are not allowed. While it is a guideline, they also clearly tell schools how they should set up their drug education program.

 

[AZOrange]

They do. I don't know why people say that either. They clearly test. They clearly define the drugs that are not allowed. While it is a guideline, they also clearly tell schools how they should set up their drug education program.

They even have a suspension. Player caught loses 1 year of eligibility. I feel like I am missing something here.

 

[pfister1]

They even have a suspension. Player caught loses 1 year of eligibility. I feel like I am missing something here.

Probably because they don't do anything mandatory until the post season, thus the policy and penalties really only apply to programs that are likely to compete in the post season.

If you play basketball at Binghamton you have next to no risk of being subject of mandatory NCAA testing.

 

[rottweiler44]

Have we actually seen the full text of the SU drug policy? I am sure it is written in such a way that there is discretion allowed based on the severity of the problem and that there are out clauses throughout the entire policy.

 

[rrlbees]

They even have a suspension. Player caught loses 1 year of eligibility. I feel like I am missing something here.

I think the key is the punishment only applies to failing an NCAA test administered during an NCAA championship event. Otherwise, the schools set everything else in season.

 

[ar inj]

I think the key is the punishment only applies to failing an NCAA test administered during an NCAA championship event. Otherwise, the schools set everything else in season.

Curious. Do you know what the sanction is for testing positive at an NCAA championship event team sport (bball) v. individual sport (swimming) and weed v. steroids?