Started By
Message
2
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:08 pm to joshnorris14
Well it wont happen so do not expect it and if it does happen expect the NCAA to get sued and all CFB to suffer.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:09 pm to sms151t
quote:
His suspension began October 12, and according to Wednesday's report, his legal team will argue he had no knowledge the supplement that triggered the positive test contained a substance banned by the NCAA. His lawyers will also reportedly argue that the supplement itself was NCAA approved.
This changes things IMO.
Very interesting.
A little more detail?
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:10 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
When you're wrong I hope you're a part of the mini melt
IMO there's only two ways he wins the appeal:
1) The Florida staff told him to keep taking it because it wasn't banned, when it was. And there will likely be other issues and implications that go along with that result for the University.
2) That the NCAA didn't notify that the substance was banned when they put out their information to coaches and staff across the country at the beginning of the Fall sports season. Having worked with the NCAA on this, I would be very surprised if that happened.
It's not unreasonable for someone to sit here in say that it'd be a very unique circumstance for him to win an appeal. Especially for those of us who have dealt with NCAA athletes, substances, and their education on what they can/can't take.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:11 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
es, that's exactly the kind of melt I want to see
You created a topic for discussion on will griers suspension. Some people believe that will grier is not that innocent. That is not melting. That is discussion.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:11 pm to BrerTiger
One thing for sure no matter what the findings..he won't be cleared this year.the NCAA will drag this out till the off season. If the supplement was approved in the prior year it's probably at least a 50/50 shot he can play next year..but the NCAA can still say he should have run it by the teams staff, which he admitted he didn't.
A 1 year penalty for an OTC supplement that was previously approved, seems harsh to most reasonable people and I think that's where the appeal will focus.
But, I would never bet on the NCAA to make any decision one way or the other.
A 1 year penalty for an OTC supplement that was previously approved, seems harsh to most reasonable people and I think that's where the appeal will focus.
But, I would never bet on the NCAA to make any decision one way or the other.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:11 pm to BluegrassBelle
My guess is that the supplement was contaminated with a banned substance. Not out of the realm of possibilities in the industry.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:13 pm to austingator
quote:
quote: His suspension began October 12, and according to Wednesday's report, his legal team will argue he had no knowledge the supplement that triggered the positive test contained a substance banned by the NCAA. His lawyers will also reportedly argue that the supplement itself was NCAA approved. This changes things IMO. Very interesting. A little more detail?
What is the substance?
This is a really simple issue name the substance go to he ncaa banned substance list.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:14 pm to austingator
quote:
My guess is that the supplement was contaminated with a banned substance. Not out of the realm of possibilities in the industry.
Then it falls under this part of the NCAA Banned Substance Warning on the website (which I linked earlier):
quote:
2.Student-athletes have tested positive and lost their eligibility from using dietary supplements
3.Many dietary supplements are contaminated with banned drugs not listed on the label.
The only "change" I can see from what you linked would be if Florida staff gave it to him and OK'd it for the 15-16 year. And at that point, it will raise some very valid questions about what Florida staff is giving it's players across the board.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:14 pm to joshnorris14
Let's all hope they are right
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:14 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
One player is ineligible, one isn't
Neither player is ineligible...until they are caught. Then, both are ineligible.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:15 pm to bgator85
quote:Ahh, I gotcha I gotcha.
He is represented by our punter's father, Clay Townsend who works for Morgan & Morgan and has handled a number of high profile cases.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:17 pm to austingator
quote:
is lawyers will also reportedly argue that the supplement itself was NCAA approved.
Just say for sake of argument this is what actually happened.
The NCAA would lose every ounce of credibility they had.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:19 pm to joshnorris14
Hope he wins but the NCAA will probably just tell him to frick off.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:20 pm to BluegrassBelle
Some people just have a problem with reading comprehension.
The argument is that it was an NCAA approved supplement.
Now we just wait and see.
The argument is that it was an NCAA approved supplement.
Now we just wait and see.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:21 pm to boXerrumble
quote:
The NCAA would lose every ounce of credibility they had.
IMO they lost it all after Cam.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:22 pm to austingator
quote:
Some people just have a problem with reading comprehension.
You or Grier?
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:23 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
he's just an idiot
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:24 pm to austingator
Actually it was the Cam and Pryor situations in the same year.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:27 pm to Solo Cam
My thinking is that they found an NCAA approved substance that tests the same as the one he took and will advocate that that's what he was taking.
Otherwise I would've thought they'd have said this from the get-go.
Otherwise I would've thought they'd have said this from the get-go.
Page 5 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News