Started By
Message
re: Grier has filed appeal, says substance was approved by NCAA (update in OP)
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:28 pm to austingator
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:28 pm to austingator
quote:
But this is all speculation, because they are not releasing information details. I think is safe to assume though, that what they found in his blood was not steroids.
I don't think it's safe to assume that at all.
1
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:32 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
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.
The NCAA ban is on classes of drugs. Not individual drugs. It won't work to say I was taking androsterodrol and it's not listed.
The chance of this appeal's success on the merits is low, IMO. But the NCAA sucks, so anything could happen.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:32 pm to superstroke33
quote:
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.
isn't this substance he allegedly took fairly new? Just because it wasn't banned last year doesn't mean it was "approved." The NCAA doesn't have a list of approved substances. They have a list of banned substances. When a new supplement comes out, it may take a little while before it's banned. So regardless if it hadn't been previously banned, it was clearly banned when Grier took it. And the NCAA seems like they at least do a good job of informing teams of any new substances that are banned each year. And if the argument is that the NCAA didn't inform Florida this was a banned substance, then that likely means no one in NCAA football was notified.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:34 pm to the808bass
So they would appeal on the basis of a lie, that would be readily disproved by the blood test they already have? 
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:35 pm to austingator
Imagine if we get to trot Grier out in a rematch against LSU.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:36 pm to joshnorris14
That is a wonderful fantasy.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:36 pm to Patton
quote:
Why do teams have to forfeit wins when a player gets paid but not when they take banned performance enhancing drugs? How does that make sense? Ones an actually on the field advantage one isn't.
I realize your opinion is colored by the fact that Alabama routinely gives people extra benefits, but is it really your position that attracting top players with extra benefits doesn't provide an "on the field" advantage?
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:36 pm to superstroke33
quote:
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.
He wasn't taking OTC supplement. If he was, a picture of that OTC supplement would have been already released to the press along with a receipt and surveillance cameras of him entering and leaving the store and any other number of things. The fact that no one will comment on what exactly the substance is that he supposedly took should tell you all you need to know. Some people will have trouble connecting the dots.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:37 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
Imagine if we get to trot Grier out in a rematch against LSU.
you'd lose again
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:38 pm to austingator
quote:
So they would appeal on the basis of a lie, that would be readily disproved by the blood test they already have?
Just because it's a lie doesn't mean it will be easily disproved. I'm sure the lie will be convoluted and complicated.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:38 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
If he didn't know it was prohibited, why won't he tell us what he took?
Wow, that's a great fricking question, hope somebody answers it.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:40 pm to lsufball19
We would actually win by 17
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:41 pm to roadGator
quote:
We would actually win by 17
k
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:42 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Because he was mixing heroin and andro on a spoon and injecting it between his toes and he going to get reinstated just in time for 12. 
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:42 pm to lsufball19
K
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:43 pm to the808bass
School won't comment due to privacy laws. He won't say anything until post appeal (if at all)
This post was edited on 11/4/15 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:44 pm to MrGrind
Wrong MrGrind, he was getting shots on the sideline NFL Blitz style
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:45 pm to Adam Banks
but that doesn't prove anything other than that his dad knew he needed to put on weight to play in the SEC
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:45 pm to the808bass
quote:
The NCAA ban is on classes of drugs. Not individual drugs. It won't work to say I was taking androsterodrol and it's not listed.
They do get more specific when they report to the schools themselves ( this is old but a good example of what they sent to trainers/coaches to hand to the athletes). The PPA notice at the bottom of the 2nd page in what I linked is a good example of a substance that was banned that was previously OK by NCAA standards. And they typically give advance notice if something is being added to the list.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 1:45 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Wow, that's a great fricking question, hope somebody answers it.
I'll answer it. He was juicing
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News