How do you not automatically test the rest of the starters at the very least?
All 3 taters tested positive
- Thread starter cocks rule
- Start date
The Taters contend they 'got the bestest drug testing system in the country' - guaranteed to keep everyone happy and startin 'for the next game! No need to use some 'furrin. operation to test our boys. Just leave the details to Clempson's fine staff members.
Do we know those were the only 3 players tested? If so, that would certainly call into question any decision not to test more.
You're joking, of course, but I heard a talking head on ESPN say Clemson shouldn't wait for the B Sample results to come back. Instead, he suggested they go ahead and do their own in-house testing. Really.
We definitely need an answer to this question. I'd also like for somebody within the sports journalism community (to the extent there is such a thing) familiar with NCAA drug testing to comment on how often the "B" test results differ from the "A" test results. I would assume the "B" results almost never contradict the "A" results. If they routinely contradicted each other, I would think that would indicate pretty serious flaws in the testing methodology.
A 'B' test is simply another testing of the same sample. If exists to help rule out false positives by eliminating any problems that may have occurred during the initial testing. Similarly, it may involve more extensive testing related to the specific positive result to help rule out the presence of elements with similar molecular structures which could have possibly triggered a positive.
If the 'B' tests still show a presence of the substance, then it is pretty clear that the substance was in fact in the sample.
If the 'B' tests still show a presence of the substance, then it is pretty clear that the substance was in fact in the sample.
I would like to know what has gone on behind the scenes since this happened. Ok let's get this straight, 3 randomly selected players get chosen for a drug test. Then all 3 test positive for an illegal PED. That alone should be a mandatory team wide drug test , i mean what is the chance of that happening unless the majority of the team is doing it, which i think they are or all 3 wouldn't have tested positive. Something's not right about this picture as their wasn't a damn thing in the paper about it this morning. The crooked ass payed off NCAA is probably giving them time to get clean before they test any more, if indeed they do test any more which i highly doubt. Come on people, i don't care who you pull for, if 3 random selected players tested positive for the same illegal drug, and we ain't talking about weed here, wouldn't it make you wonder just how players are on this shit?
If the B test confirms the 1st test results, none of the 3 will play the rest of this season. No matter what Clem$on does. They're done for the year.
The Clemmers say it could be in their food, the Epsom salts they float in or the tanks for the epsom soaks. If either is found to be the culprit, then the whole team or most of it has to also have the Ostarine in their system. I mean how many of them eat the same food or soak in the same Epsom salts and tanks.
There were more than 3 players tested.
Also, Alabama had 3 players suspended also. They just haven't made the reason(s) public.
The trace amounts found are not consistent with the players using the substance as some sort of PED. However, the rule only states that if any of the banned substances are found that the players cannot play.
Also, Alabama had 3 players suspended also. They just haven't made the reason(s) public.
The trace amounts found are not consistent with the players using the substance as some sort of PED. However, the rule only states that if any of the banned substances are found that the players cannot play.
Two of 'em will be done for next year also.
Not according to tater station WYFF
https://www.wyff4.com/article/clems...ayers-fail-pre-cotton-bowl-drug-test/25684671
Because the team’s next competition is imminent, if the players fail the second drug test and Clemson immediately files an appeal, according to National Collegiate Athletic Association rules, NCAA officials could review that appeal within 48 hours.
Right, but do you have any idea how often the B test results differ from the A test results in this type of testing? Everyone keeps throwing out the obligatory "pending the results of the B test" line in describing the suspensions, but I've not heard any mention of how often the results differ. Is it one of those things where the B tests confirm the A test results 99% of the time, or is it more like 70% of the time?
So, what do you think, honestly, that Dabo and Clemson should do about this situation. Please skip the sarcasm and cheap shots, they're embarrassing and a bit juvenile. Let's discuss as adults. Fair enough?
[QUOTE="SCcocks4ever, post: 4282644, member: 2484"
Because the team’s next competition is imminent, if the players fail the second drug test and Clemson immediately files an appeal, according to National Collegiate Athletic Association rules, NCAA officials could review that appeal within 48 hours.[/QUOTE]
If two tests both yield positive results, the only appeal decision that could be rendered within 48 hours is a decision upholding the suspension. Even a sham organization like the NCAA isn't going to simply ignore two positive test results and what possible exculpatory evidence could be tracked down in 48 hours? It seems Clemson would be better off writing off this game for those three players and to take their time with the appeal so they can adequately advocate for the two players scheduled to play next season.
Because the team’s next competition is imminent, if the players fail the second drug test and Clemson immediately files an appeal, according to National Collegiate Athletic Association rules, NCAA officials could review that appeal within 48 hours.[/QUOTE]
If two tests both yield positive results, the only appeal decision that could be rendered within 48 hours is a decision upholding the suspension. Even a sham organization like the NCAA isn't going to simply ignore two positive test results and what possible exculpatory evidence could be tracked down in 48 hours? It seems Clemson would be better off writing off this game for those three players and to take their time with the appeal so they can adequately advocate for the two players scheduled to play next season.
They will uphold the suspension rule if that happens. They can't afford not to.
.[/QUOTE]
If two tests both yield positive results, the only appeal decision that could be rendered within 48 hours is a decision upholding the suspension. Even a sham organization like the NCAA isn't going to simply ignore two positive test results and what possible exculpatory evidence could be tracked down in 48 hours? It seems Clemson would be better off writing off this game for those three players and to take their time with the appeal so they can adequately advocate for the two players scheduled to play next season.[/QUOTE]
What you say makes the most sense. I guess Im worried about one of those "Cam Newton" type reviews the NCAA pulled back when Auburn was about to play for the National Championship.
If two tests both yield positive results, the only appeal decision that could be rendered within 48 hours is a decision upholding the suspension. Even a sham organization like the NCAA isn't going to simply ignore two positive test results and what possible exculpatory evidence could be tracked down in 48 hours? It seems Clemson would be better off writing off this game for those three players and to take their time with the appeal so they can adequately advocate for the two players scheduled to play next season.[/QUOTE]
What you say makes the most sense. I guess Im worried about one of those "Cam Newton" type reviews the NCAA pulled back when Auburn was about to play for the National Championship.
I could care less what Dabo and company do about any of this. I’m saying the NCAA should test every starter on the tater cartel. comprende?
If the taters can manage to get two voters on the NC committee they can make these test results go away. Js. Lots of money moving around right now behind the scenes.
Bobby Richardson was given a million dollar scholarship endowment in his name to Furman U . the year the taters lost to Syracuse and still made the playoffs. A million dollars. I doubt the timing was coincidental and I’m sure he voted in favor of the taters.
Bobby Richardson was given a million dollar scholarship endowment in his name to Furman U . the year the taters lost to Syracuse and still made the playoffs. A million dollars. I doubt the timing was coincidental and I’m sure he voted in favor of the taters.
I have no idea. My guess is it depends on the substance. Perhaps some may be more prone to false positives than others?
