Vacating the '03 NC

[Upstate]

Wouldn't the NCAA have already jumped on this if they are the ones taking care of the drug tests during the tourney? They would have been ineligible during the time of the tournament, and would most certainly be held out during that time. If there were any games to be vacated, it would be during the regular season. I don't think the NCAA would drug test, let players play and then look back to see if they were ineligible during a later investigation. If no one sat out during the '03 tourney, the hardware should be safe.

 

[jekelish]

The only thing is that in the postseason, it's random testing, right? So maybe they tested Craig Forth and didn't test Billy Edelin, in which case we likely dodged a bullet.

But let's stop talking about vacating the title, because it ain't gonna happen. Let's talk about more pertinent things, like lint, or how much Georgetown sucks.

 

[MaxwellCuse]

No one is going to be taking away the '03 NC. A scholarship maybe. Vacating regular season games? No.

 

[arbitragegls]

What are you guys doing...we arent vacating the '03 championship...that isnt even on the table or under it...relax...take some juice...enjoy a smoke and get back on track...this is a blip on the screen of life...now for some real surreality try meth...

 

[Upstate]

Agree that it won't happen -- just saying if there was anything that happened in the postseason, it obviously would have come to light 9 years ago

edit: I never said it was a possibility that anything would be vacated now, I'm further proving that if there were any possible way to vacate the NC, it would have been tested by the NCAA and would have already been handled, so there is nothing to worry about in its regard.

 

[orangenirvana]

Holy crap

 

[jekelish]

What are you guys doing...we arent vacating the '03 championship...that isnt even on the table or under it...relax...take some juice...enjoy a smoke and get back on track...this is a blip on the screen of life...now for some real surreality try meth...

...I'd say...it sounds like you've...tried it all...and didn't leave any...for the rest of...us...

 

[OrangeXtreme]

If anyone tested positive during the 2003 Tournament, don't you think the NCAA would have said something right then and there?

We don't know if anybody from the 02-03 season was even involved yet.

Maybe we'll have to vacate the 2005 Tournament instead?

 

[MaxwellCuse]

The only thing is that in the postseason, it's random testing, right? So maybe they tested Craig Forth and didn't test Billy Edelin, in which case we likely dodged a bullet.

But let's stop talking about vacating the title, because it ain't gonna happen. Let's talk about more pertinent things, like lint, or how much Georgetown sucks.

How do you know that Billy Edelin was a non-stop drug user? How do you know that Craig never enjoyed an occasional recreational puff? We know virtually nothing about what went on in the personal lives of the players, or how "drug testing" and reporting at SU actually functioned. And we (the collective board) know a heck of a lot more than Pat Forde and his partner in sensationalism.

 

[rrlbees]

No one is going to be taking away the '03 NC. A scholarship maybe. Vacating regular season games? No.

Agree the NC is safe, but I'm not convinced some regular season games couldn't be vacated in other years.

 

[Upstate]

If anyone tested positive during the 2003 Tournament, don't you think the NCAA would have said something right then and there?

We don't know if anybody from the 02-03 season was even involved yet.

Maybe we'll have to vacate the 2005 Tournament instead?

exactly my point

 

[br801]

What are you guys doing...we arent vacating the '03 championship...that isnt even on the table or under it...relax...take some juice...enjoy a smoke and get back on track...this is a blip on the screen of life...now for some real surreality try meth...

If I didn't see otherwise, I'd swear that's a Cali post. Well done.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

 

[rrlbees]

Maybe we'll have to vacate the 2005 Tournament instead?

Didn't we already do that?

 

[jekelish]

How do you know that Billy Edelin was a non-stop drug user? How do you know that Craig never enjoyed an occasional recreational puff? We know virtually nothing about what went on in the personal lives of the players, or how "drug testing" and reporting at SU actually functioned. And we (the collective board) know a heck of a lot more than Pat Forde and his partner in sensationalism.

First of all, it's just a random example. I don't know about Craig, but considering what kind of student he was, and the incredibly high character kid he was, I'm just assuming he was probably the least likely to have gotten high, especially in season. And Billy Edelin, based on what we know about him and the numerous rumors about drug use when he was on the hill, seemed like the most likely candidate to have toked.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Didn't we already do that?

AT&T will have to rewrite their commercial.

 

[rrlbees]

Wouldn't the NCAA have already jumped on this if they are the ones taking care of the drug tests during the tourney? They would have been ineligible during the time of the tournament, and would most certainly be held out during that time. If there were any games to be vacated, it would be during the regular season. I don't think the NCAA would drug test, let players play and then look back to see if they were ineligible during a later investigation. If no one sat out during the '03 tourney, the hardware should be safe.

Hypothetical Scenario (not saying it is what happened). Failed an in season drug test for the 3rd time making that player, according to school drug policy ineligible. Player however continued to play including the NCAA tourney. All games played by that ineligible player could be vacated.

The issue is ineligible players, not if they failed an NCAA administered test during the NCAA (which would have been dealt with at that time)

 

[jekelish]

Bees - the issue there is that it would depend on when they were deemed "ineligible" and how many tests they failed. According to the policy being quoted in the article, Player X could have failed, been allowed to play but took part in the counseling and was deemed drug free prior to the tourney, thus making him eligible for any of those games.

(and I know you were being hypothetical...this is all speculation since we, nor anyone else, knows any details, which is why it's absurd that everyone - media and fans alike - are rushing to assumptions and conclusions)

 

[MaxwellCuse]

Carmelo and Marijuana: a few forgotten tidbits from 2004:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1906525

Came up clean on the random tests administered in Denver and for the Olympic squad. His car came up "dirty" however.

 

[rrlbees]

Bees - the issue there is that it would depend on when they were deemed "ineligible" and how many tests they failed. According to the policy being quoted in the article, Player X could have failed, been allowed to play but took part in the counseling and was deemed drug free prior to the tourney, thus making him eligible for any of those games.

(and I know you were being hypothetical...this is all speculation since we, nor anyone else, knows any details, which is why it's absurd that everyone - media and fans alike - are rushing to assumptions and conclusions)

I agree with that. My point was that it depends on when the test is done and the length of the "ineligibility", if applicable. I don't know what SU's policy says and don't know after which failure ineligibility comes into place. While your scenario is possible, it is also possible a kid should have been ineligible during the NCAA's.

 

[Orangezoo]

Im sure the Jayhawks boards is very attentively following this issue... even if we are all confident the 03 NC is safe.. question is.. how can you truly determine they were ineligible.. does the policy state a written detail of the post third failure grant to still play is required or just that it was ok'd? There are some squishy details in there that makes me wonder how can they draw a hard line with a university policy that has some squishiness to it already.

 

[moqui]

Maybe we'll have to vacate the 2005 Tournament instead?

let's vacate the 1991 tournament while we're at it

 

[pfister1]

I don't think games get vacated unless a player who is ineligible by NCAA standards has played when ineligible. Assuming what was reported is true we had players who were ineligible by SU standards, not NCAA standards, play through their ineligiblity. I think this is a big distinction.

If JB had a team rule that said, if you miss curfew the night before a game you will be suspended and then ignored the policy and let the player play anyway...that certainly would not lead to games being vacated.

 

[jekelish]

But again, the NCAA doesn't care about things like curfew. They care about drugs and alcohol. That's why they have a handbook on drugs and alcohol, and not peanut butter and jelly or sex or curfew.

 

[PhatOrange]

Maybe they'll vacate our 2005 loss to Vermont.