Report: Noah Spence Suspended for 3 Games for Positive Ecstasy Test

Submitted by MGoShoe on January 7th, 2014 at 12:32 PM

The hits keep coming for the Buckaroos.

According to his father:

...the Big 10 originally suspended Spence for one year because they consider ecstasy a performance-enhancing drug. The NCAA considers ecstasy a street drug, which carries a lesser penalty. The family appealed and the suspension was dropped to three games. They appealed a second time, but the three-day suspension was upheld. The Spence family says they also plan to file a lawsuit against the Big 10.



January 7th, 2014 at 6:38 PM ^

Wow....tough room.
I thought that rule only applied to people whining about getting Not allowed to compliment either?
Either way-look at all his work today across the board-funny stuff.


January 7th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^

If my parents had found out I tested positive for ecstasy in my college days, they would NOT have gone out of their way to alleviate any repercussions. My dad probably would have made me smoke a whole carton of ecstasy!


January 8th, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^

I did a lot of drugs in college... I thought that was what it was about?  amirite? 

but seriously, who didn't do drugs in college?  I know that I at least smoked weed with 80% of the people I knew at UofM (I said knew, not hung around with:  hung around with would be 99%, in fact I only can think of one person who didn't do any drugs.... one)... and we did all other forms of drugs as well, and we made it out fine...

I am rambling, but I just want to say that popping a molly isn't the end of the world and people criticising people for drug use are, mostly, hypocrites...





January 7th, 2014 at 5:55 PM ^

I think publicly supporting your kid after they have taken an illegal substance is worse. The beating would be a disciplinary action, for being a detriment to society. Unlike what his parents are doing by trying to get him out of a punishment for committing a crime.  What message does that send? What standard and guidelines does that send to their other kids?






January 8th, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^

yep, beating kids helps them make the right decisions...



I'd say I feel sorry for your spouse and kids but really I feel sorry for you cause you were probably beaten as a child.

'its not your fault'

'its not your fault'





January 7th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^

I love this argument.  So the kid took some Molly and got a suspension that, per the books, was too long.  His parents helped him appeal it.

Who knows how they handled it behind closed doors?  Hell, I found my way into some issues in the past.  Parents would always step up to help out and then give me a scolding behind closed doors.

Certainly, though, your dad beating the shit out of you taught you morality and good parenting skills.  


January 7th, 2014 at 6:03 PM ^


 I was paraphrasing that "if" I would have done such, at a position that Spence is in, that he would in fact not support me publicly, but go to great lengths using a public beating as an example to show his disappointment. All tongue and cheek, but if you want to assume that his parents are scolding him behind closed doors, be my guest. But more likely, they aren't and like what you mentioned previously, the potential to have their son make money in the NFL is their focus point, and not being good parents. Having money doesn't make you inherently a better parent. If that was the case, only about 15% of the wealthiest Americans would have decent parents. It is about being disciplined and setting a good standard. My parents raised me to have enough morality to not be a Kanye fan.  


January 7th, 2014 at 6:25 PM ^

Only a trace amount of ecstasy was found in Noah Spence's blood. Spence said the ecstasy was slipped into his drink during a house party, and he didn't take it voluntarily. 


Not that I completely believe that story, but that's why the family is appealing.


January 7th, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^

Clearly you have never danced with Molly.  Anyone who has knows that stuff doesn't enhance your performance in bed.  Quite the opposite, actually.  You'd be quite content to just lay there and have a woman rub you down with a feather.  


January 7th, 2014 at 2:48 PM ^

Clearly you are correct.

My recreational drug use largely ended in 1981 when I graduated and I dont think it had been invented yet or at least wasnt in my circle of friends.  We largely contained our partaking to pot (possession of less than two ounces in AA was a $5.00 fine back then) and coke (back then it wasn't considered addictive at all.  Just made you talk a lot).



January 7th, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^

I like to see OSU players get suspended, but why ecstasy use warrants suspension is beyond me.  It's certainly not performance enhancing.  If the coach wants to suspend him; that's cool...but it shouldn't be an NCAA or B1G issue.

Party on, Noah.


January 7th, 2014 at 2:37 PM ^

The standard is actually still illegal. Very few states have adopted the legalization of marijuana. Also, while excessive alcohol consumption is indeed more dangerous than spoking weed, it also comes with punishment.

For the record, I think marijuana should be legalized in all states. I rarely smoke it (only a few times every year or two). For the time being, however, most states still outlaw it. I think the government could earn more money by taxing the shit out of marijuana if each state legalizes (yet regulates) it. Legalizing it would allow law enforcement officials to focus on fighting more dangerous ECSTASY.


January 7th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^

Colorado is a member insitution of the NCAA (i.e. abides by their rules) ergo one cannot smoke weed and claim it's legal so they shouldnt get in trouble. 

It's the same argument as being fired by your workplace for a postive test.  Effectively a workplace can regulate your personal life by saying if you test postive for X, then bam your gone.  Just because it's legal doesnt mean you get free reign to do it.   


January 7th, 2014 at 1:46 PM ^

Swell guy.  I'm saying that the rule is not well thought out.  It's nice because, as humans, we have the capacity to look at rules/laws and sometimes feel them to be improper and/or unnecessary.  


January 7th, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^

Using that logic, I think all players under the age of 21 should be suspended for a year if they are caught using alcohol.  Maybe even two years.  Maybe they should just be kicked out of school.  After all, it's an arbitrarily illegal substance for everyone under 21 and each student knows that and should be subjected to an equally arbitrary punishment.  

All hail the B1G!!!  All hail arbitrary means of control!!!


January 7th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^

My point is illustrated by your varying levels of offense.  I don't condone the use of hard drugs and I've never used ecstacy, I'm just amused by the arbitrary punishment doled out to people by the "powers that be" often times for the sake of appearances and not fairness.  

While I conceed the need for order, it blows my mind the punishment people recieved under the banner of "War On Drugs" for offenses related to marijuana.  Can you imagine having a weed growing on your yard and out of curiosity, smoking said weed to see what the fuss was all about?  Can you imagaine going to prison for doing that?  It's happened in the past.

Taking out of the equation any talk about legalizing drugs or that they are in any way beneficial, I find it ridiculous that athletes (Ricky Williams) are penalized by organizations for the use of a non-performance enhancing drug.  Smoking weed has nothing to do with the game, and I don't see how any league should have the authority over that.  You could argue that the team itself (or whomever owns the actual players contract) should have the right to punish a player if the owner can prove that the players performance is negatively affected by the substance (and I woudln't disagree with that right), bu that's a seperate discussion entirely.  

Ultimately, my point is that we have far too many laws that are put in place solely for the sake of having a law.  These laws are often based on feelings and not objective research or evidence.   What I'm saying has nothing to do with drinking or taking drugs.  It's about authority heads trying to assert control over anything they can, while not spending the time to really evaluate what's actually happening or the fairness and/or rightness of their punishment.    Hence the big disparity in punishment.  Remember when Denard Robinson had his neck vilently twisted while helplessly under a pile during the MSU game?  What do you think deserves more punishment:  The malicious intent to physically hurt someone (potentially permanantly) or some kid ignorantly taking a potentially harmful recreational drug while at a party?  The B1G originally  thought the kid at a party should be suspended for an entire year but the asshole maliciously trying to hurt defensless players didn't deserve any sort of punishment until he actually threw a punch in that same game and then only gave him a one game suspension.   

To the MGOSpelling Nazis on the board, I apologize beforehand for any misspelled words and/or improper grammer.  Also, you can suck it.


January 8th, 2014 at 10:02 AM ^

While I'm not condoning the use of ecstasy, I'm willing to bet that there has been considerably more tragedy  caused by alcohol (by a lot) than by ecstacy, yet according to Center Ice, the possesion of ecstacy is a "5th degree felony" and alcohol is completely legal.  Hence my calling it "arbitrary control".  

Cripes, 5th degree felony?  How many degrees of felonies are there?