Yahoo! Sports - SU Hoops has drug violations | Page 12 | Syracusefan.com

Yahoo! Sports - SU Hoops has drug violations

you asked "The drug policy is university-ran, in other words, it has NOTHING to do with the NCAA or standards. So, does that mean the penalties are at the discretion of the university"

I explained how this could become an NCAA issue

I also pointed out that there was probably nothing to this
Ok I see where you're coming from. But what I meant by that statement it's up to the university on how to handle the positive test; eg. automatic suspension, kicked off the team, warning system, etc. We don't know what the penalty system at SU is.
 
Then what did he apologize for if he wasn't wrong? You don't criticize "accusers" in a child molestation case if you "know nothing"

Apologized as a PR move. How do you know he know's nothing? You think he would have said that if he knew "nothing?"
 
Apologized as a PR move. How do you know he know's nothing? You think he would have said that if he knew "nothing?"

I'm quoting him that's how I know. He didn't know about the tape so he didn't know enough to criticize the accusers.
 
It's HIS team it's HIS responsibility. He did do something wrong when he made those comments in the Fine investigation and should have been suspended. Stop being biased because he coaches SU if it was somewhere else you would be not saying the same thing.

Yes I would be saying the same thing. Absolutely. Didn't post in the UCLA thread, but my opinion on that? Big. ing. Deal.

The reason for that is that I believe that journalists are, generally, scum. the lowest form of human life. people that believe that they are serving a high ideal, when in truth they are only looking to make a name for themselves or push a particular agenda. So a journalist needs to overcome my scepticism over their integrity before I'm going to start calling for action.

In the case of UCLA, its mostly stuff that goes on everywhere, packaged in such a way to try to show a program out of control. But here's the thing, I've played on winning teams and losing teams. Winning teams got along well. losing teams were at each other's throats by the end of the year. So the author basically uncovered a shocking reality - losing teams don't get along well. It's not a big deal, but magazines publish like that to try to sell more issues, and journalists write it to try to advance their careers.

Now I'm supposed to be livid about Syracuse not following internal drug policies...when there is no required drug policy by the NCAA...and Syracuse self-reported the infractions...and the NCAA IS ALREADY ING INVESTIGATING IT!?!?!?!?? You are out of your ing mind. This is about two schmucks from Yahoo trying to get some attention for themselves, and maybe have a scalp to hang on their wall at the end. one thing it's not about for Forde and Robinson - the truth.
 
I'm quoting him that's how I know. He didn't know about the tape so he didn't know enough to criticize the accusers.
I am still waiting for your response on how he was wrong based on the way it has played out...
 
I'm quoting him that's how I know. He didn't know about the tape so he didn't know enough to criticize the accusers.

I will agree with you that he probably should have chosen his words more carefully, but to be suspended for that is insane. As of right now there is nothing and what if this entire thing is nothing? What if he was right and they were just money grabbers? If you're good friend and someone you've known for like 50 years got accused of that and you thought they were innocent I think i'd be fair to respond like that.
 
Boeheim is not dumb, he wouldn't have said that if he wasn't confident in his statement.
 
I am still waiting for your response on how he was wrong based on the way it has played out...

How has it played out? Did Fine go to trial for molesting Davis? Didn't Fitzpatrick say that there was enough evidence to go to trial if the time hadn't passed?
 
How has it played out? Did Fine go to trial for molesting Davis? Didn't Fitzpatrick say that there was enough evidence to go to trial if the time hadn't passed?
Are they suing for money? Did he say they were looking for money? If you think a crime was actually committed then you need to go back and look at everything again...
 
How has it played out? Did Fine go to trial for molesting Davis? Didn't Fitzpatrick say that there was enough evidence to go to trial if the time hadn't passed?
that was an easy (and, IMO, reckless) thing for Fitzy to say, since he would never be required to meet a burden of proof.

he said that to get in the good graces of the victims' groups; it has no probative value

on the other hand, despite all their investigating and the massive amount of publicity they have generated, Team Davis and Lang have not managed to dredge up a single piece of evidence to support their claim, nor a single other credible claimant. And their own stories are full of holes.

and, fwiw, the only thing they have sought for a remedy is to sue the nearest targets with the deepest pockets.
 
I just think it's the second time this year we've been blackjacked by some writers who wanted to make headlines for themselves by bringing up something that had taken place and been dealt with years ago.

obviously the ncaa didn't deal with it years ago since they are investigating now.
 
JDubs, I fully acknowledge that I am a UConn fan on a Syracuse board. I cruise around here and keep an eye on you guys, especially because you have a NC caliber team this year. I suppose that says something about me.

That being said, I just did a search, you have had 99 posts on this board since February 6th that contain UConn in them. You average 3 posts about UConn a day. Your avatar is Ryan Boatright. Just come on over to the yard man. The fact that your first reaction to this article was to try to deflect to UConn is hilarious.
I was born and grew up in Connecticut, my family and close friends are all big UConn fans, my dad has been a ticket holder at Gampel since I was 13 or so (I'm 23 now). I know a lot about the program, players, and the history. My post honestly was not an attack on UConn, I just remember that happening and it found it kind of curious.
 
After what we went through earlier this year, im just not impressed. I really dont care at all about this story. I doubt anything major comes of it. Id imagine by tomorrow night this will be out of the news cycle and we will only hear about it when we play this week. Where's the shock value? The live reports outside the Melo Center? The daily twists and turns? Lameeeeee.
 
So, when the UCLA news came out...we sit up on our high horse and point with disgust. Something happens at SU, "meh, all college kids do stuff.. no biggie."
Seriously, I don't recall too many on this board doing that when the UCLA story broke. You just really like stirring it up, don't you?
 
The part I don't get (someone please explain if you know):

The drug policy is university-ran, in other words, it has NOTHING to do with the NCAA or standards. So, does that mean the penalties are at the discretion of the university? The article says 10 players over 10 years, is it possible that say, Josh Wright, tested positive once, but under the universities drug policy, you get 1 "warning" and a 2nd positive test leads to a suspension, but since he never tested positive again, he wasn't suspended? Do we know for a fact that the players were "ineligible" or was that just thrown out there by Yahoo? I feel like if Gross did indeed self-report several years ago, and players did play when they were ineligible, the NCAA would have made a decision by now since it could possibly vacate wins.

Jdubs, this section of the article answer your question or am I misunderstanding?

From the article:
"Yahoo! Sports reviewed Syracuse’s student-athlete drug policies dating to the 2000-01 school year. They detailed the athletic department’s protocol for handling positive tests, including a penalty structure for a player’s first, second and third offense.
Each penalty called for the head coach to be notified and, in turn, alert a player’s parents or guardians. After the first offense, an athlete was required to attend drug counseling and rehabilitation sessions. In addition, the policy called for the offending athlete to be tested on a regular basis for the remainder of his or her eligibility.
Penalties for a second positive test included automatic suspension from practice and playing, plus mandatory drug counseling, and a player could not return to the team without being cleared by a counselor as being drug free. For a third positive test, a player was subject to termination of eligibility and expulsion from school, barring special intervention by the athletic director.
The policy stated that after a third failed test, the athletic director had the option of extending a “one-time conditional grace period” in which the athlete was subject to specific terms and conditions for corrective action during a predetermined period of time."
 
After what we went through earlier this year, im just not impressed. I really dont care at all about this story. I doubt anything major comes of it. Id imagine by tomorrow night this will be out of the news cycle and we will only hear about it when we play this week. Where's the shock value? The live reports outside the Melo Center? The daily twists and turns? Lameeeeee.

The only thing this has made me want to do is get high. This guy got on the subway at 14th st. smelling like weed and that along with all this talk of getting high made me want to get high.
 
Jdubs, this section of the article answer your question or am I misunderstanding?

From the article:
"Yahoo! Sports reviewed Syracuse’s student-athlete drug policies dating to the 2000-01 school year. They detailed the athletic department’s protocol for handling positive tests, including a penalty structure for a player’s first, second and third offense.
Each penalty called for the head coach to be notified and, in turn, alert a player’s parents or guardians. After the first offense, an athlete was required to attend drug counseling and rehabilitation sessions. In addition, the policy called for the offending athlete to be tested on a regular basis for the remainder of his or her eligibility.
Penalties for a second positive test included automatic suspension from practice and playing, plus mandatory drug counseling, and a player could not return to the team without being cleared by a counselor as being drug free. For a third positive test, a player was subject to termination of eligibility and expulsion from school, barring special intervention by the athletic director.
The policy stated that after a third failed test, the athletic director had the option of extending a “one-time conditional grace period” in which the athlete was subject to specific terms and conditions for corrective action during a predetermined period of time."
Yes this does answer my question, when I first saw the article I just breeze through it, must have missed that part ha.
 
So, when the UCLA news came out...we sit up on our high horse and point with disgust. Something happens at SU, "meh, all college kids do stuff.. no biggie."

The only major "high horse" stuff with the UCLA article involved people saying that Howland looked bad. I don't think there was any sanctimony about the drugs.
 
I would actually bet prep school kids engage in more rampant marijuana use, too, actually. Most potheads I've known have been more of the "affluent, white" variety.
Where do they buy it?
 
In the case of UCLA, its mostly stuff that goes on everywhere, packaged in such a way to try to show a program out of control. .

Did you even read the UCLA story? I sure as hell hope THAT stuff isn't going on everywhere.
 
that was an easy (and, IMO, reckless) thing for Fitzy to say, since he would never be required to meet a burden of proof.

he said that to get in the good graces of the victims' groups; it has no probative value

on the other hand, despite all their investigating and the massive amount of publicity they have generated, Team Davis and Lang have not managed to dredge up a single piece of evidence to support their claim, nor a single other credible claimant. And their own stories are full of holes.

and, fwiw, the only thing they have sought for a remedy is to sue the nearest targets with the deepest pockets.

What evidence is there when you were molested 30 years ago? Wasn't the tape some evidence? Just because they are after money doesn't mean that they were not molested.
 
What evidence is there when you were molested 30 years ago? Wasn't the tape some evidence? Just because they are after money doesn't mean that they were not molested.
The audio tape? Yea that told a lot.
 
Seriously, I don't recall too many on this board doing that when the UCLA story broke. You just really like stirring it up, don't you?

Yeah, if anything everyone that posted was commenting on how they expected more bad information about the program than that. At least early on, I stopped reading the thread because I don't care about UCLA.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,597
Messages
4,714,339
Members
5,909
Latest member
jc824

Online statistics

Members online
358
Guests online
2,055
Total visitors
2,413


Top Bottom