Oregon player(s) suspended

Submitted by Jolly_Mangina on

Starting wide receiver for sure. Rumors starting CB is also suspended.

Jolly_Mangina

January 9th, 2015 at 8:01 PM ^

Appears to be failed drug tests.  When will kids learn not to do this stuff when you know the NCAA will be testing?

vablue

January 9th, 2015 at 10:52 PM ^

The point is the NCAA suspends people for all kinds of things that don't give a competitive advantage, not that those things are all equal. If, as the poster implies, the NCAA only looked at competitive advantage being gained then you could get away with a lot and still be eligible. But the NCAA prefers their players to not break the law, much like the NFL. And it is the law, even if it is unpopular.

FGB

January 10th, 2015 at 12:00 AM ^

to stretch more than 20 hours a week.  It's not illegal to take money in exchange for going to a particular school.  It's not illegal to play a sport professionally before going to school.

The NCAA has a lot of rules that have nothing to do with the law.  Whether or not it's good policy, the rule is the rule, the rule and the consequences are widely known, and the guy made a decision to risk it. 

justingoblue

January 10th, 2015 at 12:07 AM ^

I think where the real debate should take place is whether it's appropriate for the NCAA to classify marijuana as "performance enhancing". There's not some morals clause that says pot is a no-no, it's listed right alongside steroids and stimulants as something that would provide a competitive advantage. That's what my problem with these suspensions is.

bronxblue

January 10th, 2015 at 8:00 AM ^

Well, flunking school would make you ineligible to, you know, play a sport for the school because you would no longer be admitted to said school.  But yes, the NCAA should absolutely treat punching your girlfriend/boyfriend in the face a couple of times when your angry with recreational drug usage like marijuana, which is legal in a number of states.

FauxMo

January 10th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^

If you're really worried about domestic violence and not just using it as a hot-button issue in your analogy, you should be all for weed smoking. Not a lot of super-high people like to get into violent altercations with anything other than a bag of potato chips.

xtramelanin

January 9th, 2015 at 10:22 PM ^

gabby giffords shooter, the muslim terrorists who bombed the boston marathon, lots of gangsters that i put away in my past life.   its not that pot makes you violent, it's that it adversely impacts your higher brain functions, especially if taken while younger, and good things don't happen after that.   recent study says it lowers IQ by 9 points.  

for those who are genuinely sick, cancer patients, MS, heck, i'll go buy it for them.  but for the healthy there are risks and costs.  choose wisely. 

xtramelanin

January 9th, 2015 at 10:54 PM ^

use of alcohol, especially red wine, has shown to have many positive health benefits.  sure, getting drunk is foolish, but the anti-oxidants and flavins in a glass of red are a benefit such as lowering cholesterol and blood pressure.   there have been alcoholics probably since the creation/discovery of booze, no different than any other substance, but enjoyed wisely its a good thing.

i almost forgot:  smoking MJ makes you want to touch that red arrow up there.  admit it, you're looking at it right now...

Gucci Mane

January 10th, 2015 at 1:15 AM ^

Correct me if I'm wrong but the benefits from a glass of red wine would still be ere absent the alcohol. It's like saying a grilled chicken breast topped with whipped cream is good for you, well yeah it's good for you but it be better without the whipped cream. And of course there have been multiple studies that show benefits of weed, and when weed is ate there seems to be no problems whatsoever.

East German Judge

January 9th, 2015 at 11:05 PM ^

I do not possess the scientific or clinical expertise to argue either for or against your point.  However, if you know that the NCAA, no matter how backwards and arcane they are, will test you for substance X, I don't get why you would use that substance X right before the big game?  And I am sure all coaching staffs tell players these things and these actions hurt your team's chances?  Why not wait till after the game?

justingoblue

January 9th, 2015 at 11:55 PM ^

"Last week Andy set sail for the Bahamas to sell his family boat, and he took his brother but not me. I was kind of sad at first, but then I remembered that Bob Marley song, No Woman, No Cry!"

That and the disposable cameras are wasteful because you never get to see your pictures line always crack me up.

aratman

January 10th, 2015 at 11:26 AM ^

Changing a stupid rule is what should be done if you don't like it.  Until then if you get caught breaking a rule, that you knew about and can be avoided is dumb.  I am a Washington state resident who loves the legal weed laws. The 15% less drug overdoses in itself is worth it not to mention the taxes.

west2

January 10th, 2015 at 2:10 PM ^

on the method used, definition of a "positive" test, amount/duration of use; with all of those caveats in mind it can be detected up to a month prior to testing.  The typical testing-urine sample will show up to a week prior to testing.   My only beef with this is the selective application of these tests on the eve of an event.  Maybe they should test the refs and coaching staffs too just for s & g.

west2

January 11th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^

Interestingly that the NCAA uses blood tests and has extremely low parameters (5ng/ml).  The NFL is 35ng/ml and MLB is 50ng/mg.   Individual test variances occur relative to body weight, presence of other drugs (legal and/or illegal), hydration status, individual tolerance-metabolism of THC etc.   Lots of debate on reliability with regard to timing of consumption.  With a very low "positive" test parameter it's possible a habitual user may not have consumed for weeks and test positive. Then there is the topic of false positives.  Again a very dynamic topic right now that is open to interpretation and certainly far from universally settled. 

The tests probably should be done prior to bowl season then let it go.  If this is such critical issue then why isn't Oregon's win over FSU vacated and Oregon disqualified for having ineligible players playing in last week's game?    It's an archaic rule in today's world of medical marijuana and expanding legalization.   

OccaM

January 9th, 2015 at 8:05 PM ^

So their top 2 WRs are now gone. 1 due to injury in the Rose Bowl (Allen) and 1 b/c the reefer is just too good apparently (Carrington) .... Oh and I forgot Pharaoh Brown, Oregon's best TE,  is also injured. So that makes their top 3 receivers gone for the title game.

Mariota is gonna have to literally do everything along with his sidekick Byron Marshall.

Why do football gods love OSU so much?