Any updates on Clemson’s internal investigation?

[rogue cock]

First, you are assuming Clemson did not test all of the players on the roster. The university absolutely could do its own drug test of all players to find out if anyone else had the substance in their system. I have no inside information, but I am guessing this has probably already been done. The university would not be required to make the findings public so I am sure they wouldn't.

Second, we know that 15 players were tested prior to the playoff so we know it was not all players that had it in their system. How many of the remaining 70 players would have tested positive is nothing but speculation and always will be.

I understand the rivalry and I can assure you if the shoe was on the other foot Clemson fans would be running with conspiracy theories too. However, there are 2 things you have to ask yourself if you really believe Clemson is using this whole investigation as a PR machine and knowingly gave these (or all) players a banned substance.

One: Why would they keep the investigation going if they knew the 3 players were guilty from the beginning? At this point Clemson would be best served to stop all investigations, celebrate the national championship, and let the positive tests just become forgotten news. By giving updates, requesting extensions, and sampling all supplements they are only prolonging the extent to which this stays in the news. If they knew they were guilty this would be a terrible idea.

Two: Why would Zach Giella take a substance that could cost him his last year of eligibility and why would Clemson risk giving him the substance? You can argue it would benefit Dexter Lawrence so I won't bother with that one. You may even be able to stretch an argument for Braden Galloway, but I really doubt that would be a sound argument. However, Zach Giella was a rising senior back up Offensive Linemen who had played 114 snaps in 2018 (in scrub time.) He is on scholarship so his education is free and he never was or is going to play any kind of major roll on the team. He is essentially a scout team OL. He now has lost his last year of eligibility (and free education) because of the positive test. What incentive does he or Clemson have in knowingly giving this guy a banned substance?

If Giella is so dispensable, why appeal the suspension? Like Dex, will he talk if he loses his last year of eligibility or is harmed by the suspension?

 

[brunswickfan05]

If Giella is so dispensable, why appeal the suspension? Like Dex, will he talk if he loses his last year of eligibility or is harmed by the suspension?

I think the obvious answer here is Clemson is appealing the decision because they honestly don't believe the players took Ostarine on purpose. The school seems to think it was included in something the players were allowed to take and it was not labeled as an ingredient. There are verifiable cases where this has been proven in the past. The onus of proof, though, sits with Clemson. They have to prove which supplement contained Ostarine and that it was an approved supplement by the NCAA that was not supposed to contain the drug.

My point continues to be that if Clemson already knew the players were taking the drug (i.e they were giving it to all players) they would be spending a lot of time and money in order to keep this in the news when the best thing they could do is let it slowly fade away from the public perception.

 

[cockofdawn]

I think the obvious answer here is Clemson is appealing the decision because they honestly don't believe the players took Ostarine on purpose. The school seems to think it was included in something the players were allowed to take and it was not labeled as an ingredient. There are verifiable cases where this has been proven in the past. The onus of proof, though, sits with Clemson. They have to prove which supplement contained Ostarine and that it was an approved supplement by the NCAA that was not supposed to contain the drug.

My point continues to be that if Clemson already knew the players were taking the drug (i.e they were giving it to all players) they would be spending a lot of time and money in order to keep this in the news when the best thing they could do is let it slowly fade away from the public perception.

They IN FACT did not take it on purpose, Like Dabo said, It was obviously taken accidentally when they were eating Communion wafers..

 

[rogue cock]

I think the obvious answer here is Clemson is appealing the decision because they honestly don't believe the players took Ostarine on purpose. The school seems to think it was included in something the players were allowed to take and it was not labeled as an ingredient. There are verifiable cases where this has been proven in the past. The onus of proof, though, sits with Clemson. They have to prove which supplement contained Ostarine and that it was an approved supplement by the NCAA that was not supposed to contain the drug.

My point continues to be that if Clemson already knew the players were taking the drug (i.e they were giving it to all players) they would be spending a lot of time and money in order to keep this in the news when the best thing they could do is let it slowly fade away from the public perception.

The thing is but for the P&C, it wouldn't be in the news. Not surprisingly, the Greenville News, Spartanburg H-J, Anderson Independent, and The State all ignored it and, if they were doing anything, were parroting Coach Swinney's PR statements. It was the P&C that threw a wrench into his PR plan.

 

[brunswickfan05]

The thing is but for the P&C, it wouldn't be in the news. Not surprisingly, the Greenville News, Spartanburg H-J, Anderson Independent, and The State all ignored it and, if they were doing anything, were parroting Coach Swinney's PR statements. It was the P&C that threw a wrench into his PR plan.

The thing is but for the appeal pending with the NCAA, the P&C wouldn't be reporting on it either. The reason all of the P&C articles keep being published is because reporters keep asking Dabo and other school officials what the status is of the appeal. Again, if the school had not chosen to appeal the issue in the first place then NO ONE would be reporting on it.

 

[Doctor Obvious]

If Giella is so dispensable, why appeal the suspension? Like Dex, will he talk if he loses his last year of eligibility or is harmed by the suspension?

Just read the rules. If the player wants to appeal, the school HAS to appeal.

 

[Doctor Obvious]

I think the obvious answer here is Clemson is appealing the decision because they honestly don't believe the players took Ostarine on purpose. The school seems to think it was included in something the players were allowed to take and it was not labeled as an ingredient. There are verifiable cases where this has been proven in the past. The onus of proof, though, sits with Clemson. They have to prove which supplement contained Ostarine and that it was an approved supplement by the NCAA that was not supposed to contain the drug.

My point continues to be that if Clemson already knew the players were taking the drug (i.e they were giving it to all players) they would be spending a lot of time and money in order to keep this in the news when the best thing they could do is let it slowly fade away from the public perception.

One correction: the NCAA does not approve any supplements. They make that pretty clear in all the literature.

 

[rogue cock]

Just read the rules. If the player wants to appeal, the school HAS to appeal.

Thank you. You just blew to pieces your Clemson cohort's theory/excuse.

 

[brunswickfan05]

Just read the rules. If the player wants to appeal, the school HAS to appeal.

I was not aware of that but I suppose it makes sense. If the player wants to appeal the school must file the appeal on their behalf. May I ask where you read it? Would love to read those rules.

I still think my argument stands. I have not heard a single statement from anyone saying a specific player requested the appeal. Every reference in every news article I have seen states “Clemson” is appealing.

Also, if the players knew they were taking it, why would they ask to appeal. And if Clemson knew they were taking it, why would the school spend so much time and money testing everything? Wouldn’t you just file the appeal and let the player and their lawyer be responsible for the testing?

 

[ConKreteCock]

I was not aware of that but I suppose it makes sense. If the player wants to appeal the school must file the appeal on their behalf. May I ask where you read it? Would love to read those rules.

I still think my argument stands. I have not heard a single statement from anyone saying a specific player requested the appeal. Every reference in every news article I have seen states “Clemson” is appealing.

Also, if the players knew they were taking it, why would they ask to appeal. And if Clemson knew they were taking it, why would the school spend so much time and money testing everything? Wouldn’t you just file the appeal and let the player and their lawyer be responsible for the testing?

Clemron isn't doing any testing. You're missing the bigger picture. Clemron only wants to maintain the illusion that they are testing. Thus: They get to control what is reported to the media...

Key word: "Control"

Goodness, you new around here?

 

[Doctor Obvious]

I was not aware of that but I suppose it makes sense. If the player wants to appeal the school must file the appeal on their behalf. May I ask where you read it? Would love to read those rules.

I still think my argument stands. I have not heard a single statement from anyone saying a specific player requested the appeal. Every reference in every news article I have seen states “Clemson” is appealing.

Also, if the players knew they were taking it, why would they ask to appeal. And if Clemson knew they were taking it, why would the school spend so much time and money testing everything? Wouldn’t you just file the appeal and let the player and their lawyer be responsible for the testing?

8.3.1

The school had to get permission from them to talk about it; otherwise, “suspension for unspecified violations of team or NCAA rules.”

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/SSI2018-19_Drug_Testing_Program_Protocol_20180706.PDF

 

[Doctor Obvious]

Thank you. You just blew to pieces your Clemson cohort's theory/excuse.

Makes - absolutely - no sense at all.

 

[brunswickfan05]

8.3.1

The school had to get permission from them to talk about it; otherwise, “suspension for unspecified violations of team or NCAA rules.”

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/SSI2018-19_Drug_Testing_Program_Protocol_20180706.PDF

Thanks for the link. Very interesting to read. However, 8.3 states the institution may appeal as well. Also, 8.3.2 gives the requirements of the AD filing the appeal on behalf of the institution. Based on everything I have read and the requirements for an institutional appeal it appears this is what Clemson did.

8.3. Appeals. A positive finding may be appealed by the institution to CSMAS. The institution shall notify the student-athlete of the right to appeal. The student- athlete will remain ineligible pending the outcome of the appeal.
8.3.1. The institution shall appeal if so requested by the student-athlete.
8.3.2. The request for an institutional appeal
shall be submitted by the director of athletics
or his or her designee to Drug Free Sport within five business days of the confirmation of the positive drug test unless an extension is granted by Drug Free Sport. Required documentation must be submitted by the institution within
45 days of the notice to appeal. All required documentation, including a written summary describing the institution’s drug-education policy and practices and the grounds for the appeal, must be submitted prior to scheduling the appeal.

 

[psycock]

St. Dabo would never sanction anything unethical, don`t you know? They probably got their food spiked at a fast food place or something. This has always been their M.O. Just don`t say anything and it will go away. The media up there lets them get away with whatever they want to get away with. No Ron Morris up thar.

 

[Doctor Obvious]

Thanks for the link. Very interesting to read. However, 8.3 states the institution may appeal as well. Also, 8.3.2 gives the requirements of the AD filing the appeal on behalf of the institution. Based on everything I have read and the requirements for an institutional appeal it appears this is what Clemson did.

8.3. Appeals. A positive finding may be appealed by the institution to CSMAS. The institution shall notify the student-athlete of the right to appeal. The student- athlete will remain ineligible pending the outcome of the appeal.
8.3.1. The institution shall appeal if so requested by the student-athlete.
8.3.2. The request for an institutional appeal
shall be submitted by the director of athletics
or his or her designee to Drug Free Sport within five business days of the confirmation of the positive drug test unless an extension is granted by Drug Free Sport. Required documentation must be submitted by the institution within
45 days of the notice to appeal. All required documentation, including a written summary describing the institution’s drug-education policy and practices and the grounds for the appeal, must be submitted prior to scheduling the appeal.

The student-athlete has to request the appeal. You have to read “shall,” “should,” and “may” literally.

 

[Lakecock1]

8.3.1

The school had to get permission from them to talk about it; otherwise, “suspension for unspecified violations of team or NCAA rules.”

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/SSI2018-19_Drug_Testing_Program_Protocol_20180706.PDF

Actually, the following is an NCAA recommended statement concerning a positive test that results in a student athlete’s ineligibility. And, according to the same Drug Testing manual, if the institution receives inquiries, this statement could be released:

“The student-athlete in question was found in violation of the NCAA eligibility rules and has been declared ineligible.”

Of course, Dabo chose NOT to follow the NCAA's recommendations and decided to turn this into a dog and pony show - one where he portrayed his guilty players as nothing more than 'innocent victims' with absolutely zero facts to support his stance and statement.

Giella stands to lose his final year of eligibility UNLESS he wins his appeal - which is highly unlikely absent any additional proof provided by the school of where the the drug came from and how it got into this particular player's system. He is a former walk-on OL who has been nothing more than a career backup player and was never going to see any 'meaningful' snaps in the future. Yet, he is still practicing this spring with the team.

Something does not add up.

 

[rogue cock]

Actually, the following is an NCAA recommended statement concerning a positive test that results in a student athlete’s ineligibility. And, according to the same Drug Testing manual, if the institution receives inquiries, this statement could be released:

“The student-athlete in question was found in violation of the NCAA eligibility rules and has been declared ineligible.”

Of course, Dabo chose NOT to follow the NCAA's recommendations and decided to turn this into a dog and pony show - one where he portrayed his guilty players as nothing more than 'innocent victims' with absolutely zero facts to support his stance and statement.

Giella stands to lose his final year of eligibility UNLESS he wins his appeal - which is highly unlikely absent any additional proof provided by the school of where the the drug came from and how it got into this particular player's system. He is a former walk-on OL who has been nothing more than a career backup player and was never going to see any 'meaningful' snaps in the future. Yet, he is still practicing this spring with the team.

Something does not add up.

Don't think Giella was a walk-on. Nothing mentioned on any Clemson sites, including the official one, about him being a former walk-on. And then I found this on the Clemson Paws site: "We all jumped up and down with fervor when the we signed the 2015 OL recruiting class. Mitch Hyatt, Jake Fruhmorgen, Zach Giella, and Noah Green were thought to be one of, if not, THE best OL class in school history."

 

[Lakecock1]

Don't think Giella was a walk-on. Nothing mentioned on any Clemson sites, including the official one, about him being a former walk-on. And then I found this on the Clemson Paws site: "We all jumped up and down with fervor when the we signed the 2015 OL recruiting class. Mitch Hyatt, Jake Fruhmorgen, Zach Giella, and Noah Green were thought to be one of, if not, THE best OL class in school history."

You are correct. My bad. I apparently had him confused with the Seth Penner - the Clemson OL whose apartment was robbed by Fuller and his gang of misfits.

 

[Doctor Obvious]

Don't think Giella was a walk-on. Nothing mentioned on any Clemson sites, including the official one, about him being a former walk-on. And then I found this on the Clemson Paws site: "We all jumped up and down with fervor when the we signed the 2015 OL recruiting class. Mitch Hyatt, Jake Fruhmorgen, Zach Giella, and Noah Green were thought to be one of, if not, THE best OL class in school history."

Giella had plenty of offers (including USC). That OL class was top-heavy with 5* Hyatt and 4* Fruhmorgen, then the two 3*s. Fruhmorgen left the team midway through '16 and Green had to quit football over health issues. A very low-rated DT in that class switched sides and started 8 combined games at C and RG in '18.