Derrick Walker Suspended - Violations while at UT

#29
#29
Ok boys I figured it out and I was partially wrong.

this almost certainly was an ncaa drug test related suspension. I
Assume he failed the ncaa test in Louisville. I stated that a PED failed test was a year long suspension and that is correct but I think the ncaa recently changed another part of of their policy.
This has to be it.

someone help me but I assume this means Pot???!


From ncaa:

The penalty for a positive test for a substance in the cannabinoid class is withholding from competition for 50% of the season in all sports in which the student-athlete participates. A second positive test for a cannabinoid results in the loss of a year of eligibility and withholding from participation for 365 days from the test.

16 games would be 50%
 
#34
#34
BruinVol said:
We discussed this yesterday.
It can’t be PEDs because they come with a year long suspension from the ncaa
Click to expand...
You may be right but if pot gets 50% I’m amazed any schools have enough players to play any week.
 
#38
#38
It was drug test related and Nebraska knew it when they accepted him. They are arguing that it shouldn't be 16 games because the season was shortened. A shame for him that it couldn't have been counted during the year he already had to sit out for transferring.
 
#39
#39
VolArmy74 said:
It was drug test related and Nebraska knew it when they accepted him. They are arguing that it shouldn't be 16 games because the season was shortened. A shame for him that it couldn't have been counted during the year he already had to sit out for transferring.
Click to expand...


Every canceled game should count toward the 16 but I’d guess it won’t



I know a baseball player that had a year suspension last year and they didn’t let last year count. They only allowed the 15 or so games count that were played and he has to sit 40 more games or so this year. The ncaa ain’t playing with drug test
 
#40
#40
VolArmy74 said:
It was drug test related and Nebraska knew it when they accepted him. They are arguing that it shouldn't be 16 games because the season was shortened. A shame for him that it couldn't have been counted during the year he already had to sit out for transferring.
Click to expand...
Why is that a shame? What lesson is learned for sitting out games serving a suspension that you were already supposed to miss anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinisterofDef#92 and cardvolfan
#41
#41
cncchris33 said:
Why is that a shame? What lesson is learned for sitting out games serving a suspension that you were already supposed to miss anyway?
Click to expand...


I agree but the ncaa based the 16 games off 50% of a non covid year. I just looked at Nebraska’s schedule and they have 25 games scheduled.
That tells me he should only miss 13 games.
 
#42
#42
BruinVol said:
I agree but the ncaa based the 16 games off 50% of a non covid year. I just looked at Nebraska’s schedule and they have 25 games scheduled.
That tells me he should only miss 13 games.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with that, just not with the idea he should get to serve it in a year he has to miss anyway.
 
#46
#46
cncchris33 said:
I can see that and am in favor of a one-time transfer rule. I think that is a different discussion, though.
Click to expand...

One time sounds good. I’m on the fence about allowing players to transfer when coaches leave though. It’s not fair to let coaches leave for other schools while the players are stuck. Allowing one transfer but not allowing it to be used to follow the departing coach to their new school without sitting a year seems like a reasonable approach. I’m also on the fence about transferring within the conference. The best teams shouldn’t be allowed to raid the best players from other teams without some type of limit. But conversely, should the Sabans and Cals be allowed to stockpile all of the best talent? I doubt that the NCAA is capable of figuring it all out.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top