http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...-reports-possible-drug-policy-violations-ncaa
2nd paragraph here says "
The NCAA told ESPN.com's Dana O'Neil that Syracuse had self-reported the potential violations more than a year ago."
Yes, thank you. Saved me the trouble.
The sequence of this is interesting: By the time the Yacuse article was published, they had checked with the NCAA to verify SU's claim that it had self-reported. According to the article, the NCAA denied comment "Monday" (yesterday).
Thereafter, the NCAA issued a statement saying that SU had self-reported "months ago". But when pressed later (by ESPN) to clarify how long a period this was, the spokesperson backtracked and said, "more than a year ago".
Again, my sense is, mistakes might have been made. It's certainly plausible that either JB or Jake was unaware of a positive test and allowed a player to play in a game, or that something was overlooked in the murky areas of "clearance" by a counselor, an AD waiver, etc... For all we (or Yacuse) know (knows), a test could have been sitting on JB's (or Jake's) desk .. while SU was at an away game. But after 36 years, I feel like I know JB pretty well... it seems highly unlikely to me that he would try to cover anything up. Avoiding this is exactly what SU's self-reporting was about.
And it also should not be forgotten that this is a voluntary policy. SU is bound to enforce it, and the enforcement can be overseen by the NCAA. Should we have a policy? I say yes, but what it says and how it's implemented will probably be re-visited. Suspension, as just one example, should be discretionary not mandatory, so that if a positive test comes out on a Phase 2 or Phase 3 player, the University has time to deal with it and decide what to do without worrying about immediate eligibility issues.
