What if

[CusefanATL]

It comes out that its Carmelo that failed?

if its true that 10 failed... the chances are 75/25 that melo was 1 IMO.

 

[Cuseman78]

It comes out that its Carmelo that failed?

if its true that 10 failed... the chances are 75/25 that melo was 1 IMO.

Wouldn't shock me, and that would still not register on my scandal scale

 

[Marsh01]

It comes out that its Carmelo that failed?

if its true that 10 failed... the chances are 75/25 that melo was 1 IMO.

75/25? Based on what?

 

[StopCoolio]

I would guess that we'll never find out the 10 names, so it's kind of a moot point.

If we reported this years ago as TGD says, this story is done as soon as it evaporates from the ESPN Bottom Line.

 

[oldpinepoint]

if the names ever got released i'm pretty sure it would break a few privacy laws, hence opening SU to lawsuits galore.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

They're drug tested after every NCAA Tournament game.

 

[CusefanATL]

75/25? Based on what?

if i had to rank 10 who i would think could have failed... melo is in my top 5 for sure. I don't think any would disagree...

but its not based on anything factually.

 

[cusetown1]

if i had to rank 10 who i would think could have failed... melo is in my top 5 for sure. I don't think any would disagree...

but its not based on anything factually.

who really cares? not trying to insult you.

 

[CusefanATL]

They're drug tested after every NCAA Tournament game.

pretty sure that i read that they arent drug tested after every game.

a few players are selected to be tested in randomly selected games. Meaning that the may drug test 25% of the games, and of the games selected only a few players from each team are tested.

dont quote me on that, because i was skimming twitter, but i am 99.9% sure that's what i read.

 

[CusefanATL]

who really cares? not trying to insult you.

i guess no one... but to me only 2 players matter in this that can lead to any trouble for us...

Carmelo and the Mook

Carmelo because he was the star and it would be obvious why we turned a blind eye to him which would lead to more investigating by these yahoo's.

The mook because he played minutes this year, and he isnt an 'active player' separating him from the Syracuse U release today.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

pretty sure that i read that they arent drug tested after every game.

a few players are selected to be tested in randomly selected games. Meaning that the may drug test 25% of the games, and of the games selected only a few players from each team are tested.

dont quote me on that, because i was skimming twitter, but i am 99.9% sure that's what i read.

Clearly nobody tested positive, or the NCAA would have said something years ago.

Besides, if you're NOT tested, how can they prove that you're dirty?

 

[CusefanATL]

Besides, if you're NOT tested, how can they prove that you're dirty?

TGD said we self-reported this years ago...

doesnt that mean we admitted there was some dirt?

 

[690West]

They're drug tested after every NCAA Tournament game.

Forde said they're not tested after every game. He said it's random

 

[caw]

if i had to rank 10 who i would think could have failed... melo is in my top 5 for sure. I don't think any would disagree...

but its not based on anything factually.

Well, figure 10 years x's 13 scholarships is 130 scholarships. I would hazard a guess SU had most players stay at least 2-3 years. So that would probably move it down to 50 or fewer scholarship players. So 10/50ish is 20% or so. That should have been your excuse for the 75/25 logic

 

[PhatOrange]

TGD said we self-reported this years ago...

doesnt that mean we admitted there was some dirt?

could mean a lot of things. might just mean they reported a player failed a drug test.

I doubt SU can even release the names to the NCAA due to health privacy laws.

 

[rrlbees]

They're drug tested after every NCAA Tournament game.

randomly. at least in 2003.

 

[CusefanATL]

randomly. at least in 2003.

this is ironic, and it slipped my mind until now...

i know 1 player who spent a few hours in a new orleans jail in the very beginning part of April 8th 2003 due to some marijuana smoking.

 

[rrlbees]

this is ironic, and it slipped my mind until now...

i know 1 player who spent a few hours in a new orleans jail in the very beginning part of April 8th 2003 due to some marijuana smoking.

i know who you mean but i remember it as soliciting. maybe it was possession, or both.

 

[PoppyHart]

if the names ever got released i'm pretty sure it would break a few privacy laws, hence opening SU to lawsuits galore.

Why would privacy laws prevent disclosure of something illegal?

 

[Jake]

this is ironic, and it slipped my mind until now...

i know 1 player who spent a few hours in a new orleans jail in the very beginning part of April 8th 2003 due to some marijuana smoking.

" looked good"

 

[oldpinepoint]

Why would privacy laws prevent disclosure of something illegal?

I would think the names as they are supposed to be kept private

 

[SUFan44]

" looked good"

Saw him wandering on Bourbon St. that night by myself, and I had no idea why...

I guess he had a companion named Mary Jane. It all makes sense now...