Re: Except for Hillary using an unsecured server for classified

Tigerman1978

110%er [5280]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 6926

Joined: 11/5/12

Dec 31, 2018, 8:49 AM [ in reply to Except for Hillary using an unsecured server for classified ]

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.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

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).

Dexter Lawrence Appeal

Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal

Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal

Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal

Re: Dexter Lawrence Appeal

Except for Hillary using an unsecured server for classified