»
Topic: Dexter Lawrence Appeal
Replies: 28   Last Post: Dec 31, 2018 6:57 PM by: Neal in NC®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 28  

Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 30, 2018 11:19 PM
 

Wondering if there's any shot we can get Dex back before Bammer? While not crucial, it would be nice to have him back for this one.


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 30, 2018 11:22 PM
 

Good question. Haven't seen much on this since I read there was a decent chance he would he back for natty through an appeal when this first broke. Anyjuan?


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 30, 2018 11:35 PM
 

the only way would be to win an appeal to disprove the results. Not sure how that's gonna happen. I think we should all assume big Dex will be in his sweatshirt again. I knew his absence would matter vs. ND, but Bama could be a different story. It could also motivate the team, so who knows, they seemed locked in without him


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 12:10 AM
 

I don't think there will be any argument on the results. I think the key would be finding the source to show there was no intent.


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 12:19 AM
 

It looks like they might have a mighty difficult time genuinely finding the source.

In fact, at this phase, I have started following up on TigerBalm's poisoned dart theory and will be putting my investigative efforts into that avenue as well.

As of my last new clue I realized I was only a few steps behind Balm's trail and caught a glimpse of his mullet dashing off toward a dark alley last I seen him. He was wearing that same suit in his avatar pic that he wears every day. Anyways, between me and him, we will get this poisoned dart attack conspiracy solved I'm quite confident.


Except for Hillary using an unsecured server for classified

[2]
Posted: Dec 31, 2018 12:21 AM
 

communications I've never heard of intent playing a part in laws, rules or regulations.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Except for Hillary using an unsecured server for classified


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:22 AM
 

This is correct. Intent is purposefully absent in the rule to prohibit “wiggle room”. The only way this is overturned is if someone purposely tainted the sample.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Except for Hillary using an unsecured server for classified


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:49 AM
 

That's incorrect as far as an appeal. They can fight intent in the appeal. Rules, 5-B-i. Knowledge challenge

http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/drug-testing-appeals-process

5. The NCAA does not restrict the grounds for an appeal, but an institution bringing an appeal must comply with the requirements set forth in Section 8.0 of the NCAA Drug Testing Program Protocol. Appeal considerations are outlined below:
A. Procedural challenge: Either the institution or student-athlete may challenge any procedure relating to the collection or testing of the subject samples. If the institution or student-athlete proves it is more likely than not that any substantiated problem with the collection or testing procedures materially affects a sample's integrity, the drug-test appeal panel may find that no doping violation has occurred.

B. Knowledge challenge: The student-athlete is responsible for all substances consumed. However:

B. i. If the institution or the student-athlete demonstrates that the student-athlete was not aware they had been administered (defined as placed into the student-athlete’s system directly or through food or drink) a substance by another person that later is found to have contained a banned ingredient, then the drug-test appeal committee may determine that no violation has occurred. In this situation, the student-athlete must show that he or she both did not know and could not reasonably have known or suspected (even with the exercise of utmost caution) that he or she had been administered by a third party a substance that is later found to have contained a banned ingredient. or
b. ii. If the institution or the student-athlete demonstrates that the student-athlete asked specific and reasonable questions about a particular substance, medication or product of the appropriate athletics administrator and the athletics administrator erroneously assured the inquiring student-athlete that the substance does not list a banned ingredient (but it did), then the drug-test appeal committee may determine that no violation has occurred. In this case where the substance, medication or product reviewed and approved for use by the institution does list a banned substance, this may result in an institutional violation.


Re: Except for Hillary using an unsecured server for classified


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:49 AM
 

Nm.


Maybe if Dexter said he was extremely careless


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 12:25 AM
 

with what he consumed instead of grossly negligent, he’ll get off Scott free...


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:38 AM
 

Intent has very little to do with this game. They would require a clean sample, making sure the substance is 100% out of his body before they would allow him back. And then an explanation of how it got there in the first place.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal

[1]
Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:53 AM
 

See my post above. That's actually very incorrect. The NCAA appeals protocol does outline a challenge can be made based on knowledge of taking the product...i.e. intent. But they would have to prove he didn't intend to take it, or more or less, have to prove he wasn't under any knowledge of it being in however it got in his system.. Whether it be the salt tanks, a salt pill, or another product that contained it and didn't list it.


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 10:47 AM
 

Thanks for your post

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I somewhat disagree...


Posted: Dec 30, 2018 11:55 PM
 

... not having Dex against Bama hurts us more than it did against Notre Dame...hope we find a way to get him back


Re: I somewhat disagree...


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 7:37 AM
 

I’d say his reinstatement is a legal issue now and that likely takes time. Don’t count on his return to clemson football.


Re: I somewhat disagree...


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 7:48 AM
 

Someome linked the appeal process. It is done anonymously over the phone, only giving titles not names. So it can be decided this week.

The key is to ID the source and prove procedure was followed and player could not have known there was ostarine in it.


Re: I somewhat disagree...


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:48 AM
 

Unless the hearing committee is made up of 5 morons or mushrooms, who has not been exposed to THIS story?...

2019 white level member

Re: I somewhat disagree...


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:02 AM
 

I’m with you!

I know it didn’t effect the outcome against nd

But cw playmaking was basically eliminated with constant double teams.

Expect Bama to do the same!!

I’m sure bv will dial somethings up

But pressure up the middle on tau with out blitzing would be a huge plus for the tigers next week


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:05 AM
 

Will probably have the same results from NCAA as did my blue heaven. Two years for a decision. They have no trust in my mind. Really


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:18 AM
 

Bush said:

Will probably have the same results from NCAA as did my blue heaven. Two years for a decision. They have no trust in my mind. Really




20 years of cheating should take longer than .002 of something in the blood.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:43 AM
 

It did take longer, to decide to do nothing!


There is an NCAA precedence for allowing suspended players


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:22 AM
 

to participate in a bowl game - case in point Ohio State in December 2010. From my post yesterday:

"In December 2010, 5 Ohio State players (including Terrell Pryor) were determined by the NCAA to have received multiple impermissible benefits over a 2 year period. The NCAA issued their "punishment" 10 days prior to the 2011 Sugar Bowl between #6 Ohio State and #8 Arkansas. The NCAA mandated a 5 game suspension for the Ohio State players but the NCAA did not suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl because they "did not receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred."

Seems to me the NCAA set a precedent regarding rule violation suspensions for "unwitting" rules violations in bowl season. Since our guys have no idea how the minute traces of PED got into their bodies, they are certainly no more culpable in NCAA rule breaking than those Ohio State players in 2010. Clemson should be raising holy h3ll with the NCAA to allow Dexter Lawrence and our other two guys to play in the National Championship game. Publicly remind the NCAA how they made a special exception for a highly ranked Ohio State team in the 2011 Sugar Bowl and for the NCAA to remain consistent with previous rulings, our players should be allowed to play in the National Championship. Of course Clemson is not an NCAA "favored child" so any appeal we put forth will probably be met with far less leniency than say an Ohio State or Alabama appeal...

As a follow up to the 2010 Ohio State impermissible benefits: Terrell Pryor never served a single game of suspension because he went pro immediately following the Sugar Bowl. In May 2011, Jim Tressel was essentially fired (he resigned in lieu of firing) over this incident for lying about his knowledge of the impermissible benefits."

The NCAA found an excuse and bent their rules to give Ohio State a "pass" on immediate player suspensions for their bowl game. Clemson should demand the NCAA do the same for our players - especially considering the circumstances (no prior drug positives from these players, all had minute traces, and none of them know how the ostarine got in them).

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

as long as you can prove that they did


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 8:48 AM
 

not knowingly take a banned substance, then there is a chance. Getting popped on a drug screen and saying sorry I didn't know I took the drugs does not work without proof, otherwise there would be no need for drug testing, we could just ask them,

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Play him and expose the NCAA preferential bias in court after the game***


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 10:44 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 10:51 AM
 

Ostarine is a pharmalogical drup primarily prescribed to terminally ill patients to mitigate muscle degeneration. It is banned worldwide because in most people it promotes muscle growth. Like most of you I heard for the first time that DL's mother was diagnosed with 2 terminal illnesses.
I do not know if her meds have Ostarine but most medication can be absorbed through the skin on contact. Just read the warning labels.
Hopefully they check to see if this is where the incident occurred.
If they pursue the mystery "energy drink" or "shampoo" the problem is it is still illegal for companies to put Ostarine in those products. Anyone that does is doing so to facilitate cheating.
If he tested positive through incidental contact with his mother's medication I am sure he would be exonerated. This could also explain why two other players tested positive. Ostarine does come in topical applications. If his mother applies a craem to her hands and touches his hands the next hands he touches would show positive also.
The bad news is he could inadvertently cause more bad test results if this is the case and is not discovered.
Again this is all speculation, but the probability is much greater for this to be the cause than some random product that a manufacturer makes intentionally breaking the law.


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 10:51 AM
 

Ostarine is a pharmalogical drup primarily prescribed to terminally ill patients to mitigate muscle degeneration. It is banned worldwide because in most people it promotes muscle growth. Like most of you I heard for the first time that DL's mother was diagnosed with 2 terminal illnesses.
I do not know if her meds have Ostarine but most medication can be absorbed through the skin on contact. Just read the warning labels.
Hopefully they check to see if this is where the incident occurred.
If they pursue the mystery "energy drink" or "shampoo" the problem is it is still illegal for companies to put Ostarine in those products. Anyone that does is doing so to facilitate cheating.
If he tested positive through incidental contact with his mother's medication I am sure he would be exonerated. This could also explain why two other players tested positive. Ostarine does come in topical applications. If his mother applies a craem to her hands and touches his hands the next hands he touches would show positive also.
The bad news is he could inadvertently cause more bad test results if this is the case and is not discovered.
Again this is all speculation, but the probability is much greater for this to be the cause than some random product that a manufacturer makes intentionally breaking the law.


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 10:52 AM
 

Ostarine is a pharmalogical drup primarily prescribed to terminally ill patients to mitigate muscle degeneration. It is banned worldwide because in most people it promotes muscle growth. Like most of you I heard for the first time that DL's mother was diagnosed with 2 terminal illnesses.
I do not know if her meds have Ostarine but most medication can be absorbed through the skin on contact. Just read the warning labels.
Hopefully they check to see if this is where the incident occurred.
If they pursue the mystery "energy drink" or "shampoo" the problem is it is still illegal for companies to put Ostarine in those products. Anyone that does is doing so to facilitate cheating.
If he tested positive through incidental contact with his mother's medication I am sure he would be exonerated. This could also explain why two other players tested positive. Ostarine does come in topical applications. If his mother applies a craem to her hands and touches his hands the next hands he touches would show positive also.
The bad news is he could inadvertently cause more bad test results if this is the case and is not discovered.
Again this is all speculation, but the probability is much greater for this to be the cause than some random product that a manufacturer makes intentionally breaking the law.


Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal


Posted: Dec 31, 2018 6:53 PM
 

I haven’t heard this about Dexters mom. Where did you read this?


he doesn't hang out with the other two

[1]
Posted: Dec 31, 2018 6:57 PM
 

unless the staff can produce the contaminated source, and prove that it was unknowingly given, its a done deal.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Replies: 28  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: South Carolina
FOR SALE: Got 6 together in sec 505. Row 41. 150.00 each 864-630-8050

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
5757 people have read this post