People are missing a key point about drug testing

[rrlbees]

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?

No i don't. It might be in that NCAA drug handbook posted.

 

[jncuse]

Indeed you need a policy - and I am sure for many universities it says they can be tested at any time at the discretion of the university .

You can test who you need to test... wink wink. If the player is relevant you can use the discretion not to test. If the player needs to be "Calhouned" out of the program, then he can be tested with a policy to support his dismissal

 

[Dick_in_MI]

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.

Anybody know I'd the drug test includes booze? Weed is illegal but so is underage drinking. I'm guessing the NCAA has differentiated between the two but in reality that would be inconsistent (imagine that...the NCAA being inconsistent...)

 

[rrlbees]

Anybody know I'd the drug test includes booze? Weed is illegal but so is underage drinking. I'm guessing the NCAA has differentiated between the two but in reality that would be inconsistent (imagine that...the NCAA being inconsistent...)

alcohol nor tobacco are ncaa banned drugs. here is what is banned (kind of messy copy and paste job)

Banned Drug Classe S
with some examples
NOTE: all substances related to
the class are banned

Stimulants:
Amphetamine
Caffeine
Cocaine
Ephedrine (ephedra,
ma huang)
Methamphetamine
Octopamine
Phentermine
Synephrine (bitter
orange, zhi shi)

Street drugs:
Heroin
Marijuana
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

Anabolic agents
and steroids:
Androstenedione
Boldenone
Dehydroepiandrosterone
(DHEA)
Dihydrotestosterone (DHT)
Clenbuterol
Epitrenbolone
Gestrinone
Nandrolone
Stanozolol
Testosterone
19-norandrostenedione

Peptide hormones
and analogues:
Darbypoietin
Erythropoietin (EPO)
Corticotrophin (ACTH)
Growth hormone (hGH,
somatotrophin)
Human chorionic
gonadotrophin (hCG)
Insulin-like growth factor
(IGF-1)

Diuretics and other
Masking Agents:
Bumetanide
Canrenone
Furosemide
Hydrochlorothiazide
Probenecid
Triamterene
Anti-Estrogens:
Anastrozole
Clomiphene
Tamoxifen

Beta-2 Agonists:
formoterol
salbutamol
bambuterol

Alcohol and Beta
Blockers:
for rifle only
atenolol
nadolol
propranolol

 

[AZOrange]

Here is the handbook...a couple of things:

1. Looks like the NCAA can test whenever they want during the year.

2. Looks like a positive result (absent appeals) results in a 1 year loss of eligibility.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/DT11.pdf

 

[Garbs]

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.

actually Josh Wright mysteriously missing that tourney, whatever year it was, must have been because of a failed test, did not want to risk him being selected

 

[rrlbees]

actually Josh Wright mysteriously missing that tourney, whatever year it was, must have been because of a failed test, did not want to risk him being selected

both wrights if i recall.

 

[OrangeMojo]

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 . . .

well, that shouldn't be a problem - if you have a player that has tested positive three times already and you can't convince them to stop using drugs at that point by explaining the ramifications of a 4th positive test, then screw em - they deserve to be suspended and they should be suspended

 

[pfister1]

actually Josh Wright mysteriously missing that tourney, whatever year it was, must have been because of a failed test, did not want to risk him being selected

yes, but regardless of the motivation for sitting them, not being allowed to travel with the team to an NCAA game would be a suspension and thus consistent with the policy.

 

[Fireball Jr.]

drug testing, for the most part, strikes me as downright unAmerican and unconstitutional, but, that aside, why are only athletes tested? wanna test students, test 'em all.

 

[DCCuse]

On Bees' list -- Caffeine?? Kid has one too many cappuccinos at Starbucks and he is in trouble? That can't be right.

 

[Garbs]

yes, but regardless of the motivation for sitting them, not being allowed to travel with the team to an NCAA game would be a suspension and thus consistent with the policy.

depends when the failed test occurred

 

[CusefanATL]

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.

so what you are saying is that we created this policy in order to drug test our players to advise them when they needed to quit smoking the ganja.

and when they didnt adhere to it, we proactively suspended so nobody failed NCAA (see 2005)

honestly, makes sense to do so.

 

[billsin01]

Anybody know I'd the drug test includes booze? Weed is illegal but so is underage drinking. I'm guessing the NCAA has differentiated between the two but in reality that would be inconsistent (imagine that...the NCAA being inconsistent...)

Yeah, I find drug testing to be completely preposterous for this very reason. Listen, I'm not a drug user and only really basically dabbled a bit in high school and college. Unless we're counting alcohol, but even that is pretty minimal at this point (though those that see me at the BET this weekend may find that hard to believe).

But, ultimately, who cares? I mean, if we're talking health concerns, then what about all the athletes that are overweight and have terrible diets (cc sabbathia, bartolo colon, nfl linemen ...) thus running the risk of heart disease or diabetes as they age? Or what about unsafe sex? Or all the legal supplements that are completely unregulated and, for the most part I believe, not FDA approved with no long-term testing? Or alcoholism and binge drinking?

If we're talking about integrity of the game or record books, then it's even more insane. In what meaningful way can you really compare the stats the 87 team put up with the stats this one did taking into account how much the game, the competition, the workout regimens, etc. have changed? And what is the integrity of the game? I'd even argue that athletes taking advantage of their fame or simply being terrible human beings is easily as much a part of the culture of athletics as ideals like great sportsmanship, character building, etc.

If a 20-year-old wants to pump himself full of a few cycles of HGH b/c he wants a shot at the NFL, I say it's fine as long as he understands the inherent risks. And if they want to go out and smoke a little weed or do some blow? I get why parents are concerned, but kids/adults do it all the time. Again, what does that matter to the ncaa or the university?

 

[arbitragegls]

...and we thought FAB had a problem with Spanish...sobeit for the fans to know what really was going on...that infectuous smile...the look of no guilt...maybe it was...naw not that......(kidding)

 

[BillJay]

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

About a year back FanHouse did an article about the major football schools & their suspension policies. 4 of the 68 do not require missing any game time at all after a 2nd positive test. But at about 1/2 of the programs a player is kicked off of the team after a 3rd positive test.
linky
Syracuse, btw, did not provide a copy of its drug policy to FanHouse & is not included in the numbers.

 

[Fjoinkay]

I have no problem with an in-house drug testing program especially since it might prevent a student-athlete from failing a random test administered by the NCAA. It's a good idea.

But because the NCAA has set no requirement for schools to test themselves and the data about testing at schools that choose to test is unavailable I believe this alleged scandal is ridiculous. The SU policy according to Yahoo I believe doesn't even require suspension from, school, practices or games for the first offense. The point being it's up to SU.

And we learn that some of the basketball players failed in-house drug tests 3 or 4 times...ok, over what span of time? In one year or over the course of 4 or 5 years? That's relevant information that should be included in this type of reporting. Not to mention that Yahoo fails to mention any other schools other than Baylor or how many schools have their own drug testing practice and what the policy is for those schools when tests are failed and how those basketball players who failed have been handled over the past 10 or more years. It goes on and on...

 

[baggerbob]

2001-02 players who left school or transferred Greg Davis, James Theus,Williams, Mark Konecny.

 

[rrlbees]

But because the NCAA has set no requirement for schools to test themselves

But they do dictate what drugs are banned for use by athletes. We choose to have a policy that assures those drugs aren't used (as we should).

 

[RoysRunts]

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.

So their Policy (NCAA) is to test once out of 365 Days in a year.

 

[MaxwellCuse]

alcohol nor tobacco are ncaa banned drugs. here is what is banned (kind of messy copy and paste job)

Banned Drug Classe S
with some examples
NOTE: all substances related to
the class are banned

Stimulants:
Amphetamine
Caffeine

Caffeine? Really!! So we might have our 2003 National Championship stripped because Melo and Hak stopped by the local Starbucks?

 

[Fjoinkay]

But they do dictate what drugs are banned for use by athletes. We choose to have a policy that assures those drugs aren't used (as we should).

In my first paragraph I say that testing is a good idea. I'm saying that blowing the alleged lack of institutional control into a scandal is ridiculous and unfairly reported.

 

[rrlbees]

Caffeine? Really!! So we might have our 2003 National Championship stripped because Melo and Hak stopped by the local Starbucks?

I'm sure it is about "levels". If they found you had a Starbucks that day, no issue. It's the level of caffeine which isn't just a coffee or coke.

 

[moqui]

I'm sure it is about "levels". If they found you had a Starbucks that day, no issue. It's the level of caffeine which isn't just a coffee or coke.

nor even an energy drink, but a handful of diet pills would probably hit the trigger

 

[MaxwellCuse]

nor even an energy drink, but a handful of diet pills would probably hit the trigger

Reminds me of a couple guys named Crowder and Johnson-Odom.