(08-26-2013 04:34 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  Maybe I'm just not as quick to step on others though.

Don't think I don't see what you did there. Deflecting criticism from the drug user onto the guy who took off the purple colored glasses for a minute and called a drug user a drug user.

My point was not so much about IF, but more so about the way that we as fans respond to poor decisions made by players like IF. We are apologists on the whole, and it bothers me. Your response of the brain not fully developing until the age of 25 is a perfect example. I couldn't think of a better example of the point that I was trying to make than the one you provided for me. So thank you for that.

Soooooooooooooooo... to summarize...

He was suspended, but at practice, but not practicing, but off the roster, which means kicked off the team, except he might not be kicked off the team, and sources confirmed it may have been due to a failed drug test, but maybe not...

Anyone know whats going on here???

(08-27-2013 09:16 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  Soooooooooooooooo... to summarize...

He was suspended, but at practice, but not practicing, but off the roster, which means kicked off the team, except he might not be kicked off the team, and sources confirmed it may have been due to a failed drug test, but maybe not...

Anyone know whats going on here???

sounds like the same menu ... but the name's changed ...

(08-27-2013 07:44 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:13 AM)JMU_Newbill Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:46 AM)Madisonian Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 04:34 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  Too be fair the brain doesn't fully develop till 25 and the law doesn't give citizens full responsibility/duties until 21 or 25 depending on which law you are reading.

I also take a slightly different view (maybe cause of my own experiences) but a person can still be a "good" person if they failed a drug test. Sounds like the other guy you described could be a "great" kid. Maybe I'm just not as quick to step on others though. Bill Gates pledged to donated 99% of his wealth but he also said he did LSD, go ahead and say he isn't a "good" guy.

Now if your argument is he lets his teammates down and he owned them an obligation, I agree.

Hmmm... I triple dog dare you to provide 1 law which doesn't give an individual duty or responsibility until age 21 or 25 (there are several privilege age limitations under the law - legal drinking age, driving, etc.). While there is now a study reporting that the male brain does not fully form until 25, I submit that under the same logic, I should never be responsible for speeding tickets or reckless driving on the interstate because my little German car will go 160 mph. After all, like a 20 year old with a developing brain, I too am at the mercy of my equipment. Is there a single tried case where an attorney has prevailed with the "my client is 20, his brain hasn't fully formed, therefore he is not guilty of the charges" defense?

25 is the age that a lot of real estate places (e.g. beach vacation homes) require for you to be the sole name on the rental lease. 25 is also commonly referred to for men as "the year your car insurance finally goes down". Whether there is any actual law to back that up, I will defer to someone on here that knows way more (anything) about law.

I'll add the healthcare law and certain gun sales to the growing list of instances where society does not treat an individual as a full responsible adult until well past the age of 18.

Regarding the real estate rentals and the car insurance rates -- quite simply actuaries doing their jobs to maximize profits by limiting losses. These are not laws just good business practices.

Regarding the Affordable Care Act - it provides for the opportunity for parents to maintain their adult children on their policies until age 25. It in no way defers responsibility for individual health insurance until that age.

In most states you can buy any gun at 18, but several do, as you suggest limit to hand gun sales to 21. This again would fall as privilege not duty or responsibility.

Not trying to argue semantics here, at 18 you are no longer a minor and with that comes the responsibilities of being an adult.

To add to the argument, an 18 year old in the military gets drug tested at least 4 times per year. If caught, he pays the consequences, and it "ain't" pretty!

(08-27-2013 07:56 PM)Madisonian Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:44 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:13 AM)JMU_Newbill Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:46 AM)Madisonian Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 04:34 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  Too be fair the brain doesn't fully develop till 25 and the law doesn't give citizens full responsibility/duties until 21 or 25 depending on which law you are reading.

I also take a slightly different view (maybe cause of my own experiences) but a person can still be a "good" person if they failed a drug test. Sounds like the other guy you described could be a "great" kid. Maybe I'm just not as quick to step on others though. Bill Gates pledged to donated 99% of his wealth but he also said he did LSD, go ahead and say he isn't a "good" guy.

Now if your argument is he lets his teammates down and he owned them an obligation, I agree.

Hmmm... I triple dog dare you to provide 1 law which doesn't give an individual duty or responsibility until age 21 or 25 (there are several privilege age limitations under the law - legal drinking age, driving, etc.). While there is now a study reporting that the male brain does not fully form until 25, I submit that under the same logic, I should never be responsible for speeding tickets or reckless driving on the interstate because my little German car will go 160 mph. After all, like a 20 year old with a developing brain, I too am at the mercy of my equipment. Is there a single tried case where an attorney has prevailed with the "my client is 20, his brain hasn't fully formed, therefore he is not guilty of the charges" defense?

25 is the age that a lot of real estate places (e.g. beach vacation homes) require for you to be the sole name on the rental lease. 25 is also commonly referred to for men as "the year your car insurance finally goes down". Whether there is any actual law to back that up, I will defer to someone on here that knows way more (anything) about law.

I'll add the healthcare law and certain gun sales to the growing list of instances where society does not treat an individual as a full responsible adult until well past the age of 18.

Regarding the real estate rentals and the car insurance rates -- quite simply actuaries doing their jobs to maximize profits by limiting losses. These are not laws just good business practices.

Regarding the Affordable Care Act - it provides for the opportunity for parents to maintain their adult children on their policies until age 25. It in no way defers responsibility for individual health insurance until that age.

In most states you can buy any gun at 18, but several do, as you suggest limit to hand gun sales to 21. This again would fall as privilege not duty or responsibility.

Not trying to argue semantics here, at 18 you are no longer a minor and with that comes the responsibilities of being an adult.

Truthfully, you are trying to argue semantics and you are missing the bigger picture. The part that is much bigger than JMU and IF is society tells kids they are adults at 18 but then doesn't always treat them as such. Real estate agents and car insurance know that 20 year olds are not as mature as 25 year olds. The healthcare law basically allows someone that is 25 to still be a dependent of their parent. Some state say that 18 year olds are not responsible to own a gun. These and probably many more instances are where laws/rules/regulations/whatever else you want to throw in, show that when someone is 18 they are not mentally an adult, the initial point I made.

from todays dnr

Quote:But none of that worked out. Matthews said Fisher and Reynolds requested position changes when it became clear they would not beat out Birdsong — although Matthews said that Reynolds, who has moved to and excelled at cornerback, is talented enough to play QB. He said Fisher, now a tight end, doesn’t have “a strong enough arm.”

(08-26-2013 04:34 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  Too be fair the brain doesn't fully develop till 25 and the law doesn't give citizens full responsibility/duties until 21 or 25 depending on which law you are reading.

Yep. You clearly defined that point in your first post. We're in agreement, let's move on.

(08-28-2013 07:01 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  from todays dnr

Quote:But none of that worked out. Matthews said Fisher and Reynolds requested position changes when it became clear they would not beat out Birdsong — although Matthews said that Reynolds, who has moved to and excelled at cornerback, is talented enough to play QB. He said Fisher, now a tight end, doesn’t have “a strong enough arm.”

Today's DNR also mentions Thourogood has now moved to safety and Lukas O'Connor to WR.

(08-26-2013 09:53 AM)TheDudeWithTheJMUTat Wrote:  I'm getting tired of the "He messed up, but he really is a good kid" claims. First of all, he's an adult. Second of all, if a kid who works his butt off on the field, gets good grades, and doesn't do drugs is a good kid, than what is a second year player who fails multiple drug tests? Surely, he can't be a good kid too. I think the first hypothetical student athlete I mentioned would take exception to being lumped into the same category as a drug user with multiple offenses.

tl;dr: He isn't a kid and he isn't good.



Edit: I'm prepared for blow back from drug apologists. But I'm having a long, drawn-out Monday and it's not even noon yet. Bring it.

You can be good and smoke weed , if he was a student-athlete he wouldn't be getting tested and we would never know. They actually have a 1st offender statue for first time marijuana convictions. SO VA courts even give a little room for mistakes with weed. The FBI for employment asks if you have smoked weed within the last five years. I am attempting to figure out if you being sarcastic.

(08-27-2013 09:46 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  To add to the argument, an 18 year old in the military gets drug tested at least 4 times per year. If caught, he pays the consequences, and it "ain't" pretty!

National security , I would hope so ha

(08-28-2013 02:18 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 09:53 AM)TheDudeWithTheJMUTat Wrote:  I'm getting tired of the "He messed up, but he really is a good kid" claims. First of all, he's an adult. Second of all, if a kid who works his butt off on the field, gets good grades, and doesn't do drugs is a good kid, than what is a second year player who fails multiple drug tests? Surely, he can't be a good kid too. I think the first hypothetical student athlete I mentioned would take exception to being lumped into the same category as a drug user with multiple offenses.

tl;dr: He isn't a kid and he isn't good.



Edit: I'm prepared for blow back from drug apologists. But I'm having a long, drawn-out Monday and it's not even noon yet. Bring it.

You can be good and smoke weed , if he was a student-athlete he wouldn't be getting tested and we would never know. They actually have a 1st offender statue for first time marijuana convictions. SO VA courts even give a little room for mistakes with weed. The FBI for employment asks if you have smoked weed within the last five years. I am attempting to figure out if you being sarcastic.

You hit the nail on the head....but they are Student-Athletes, and as such have a higher degree of responsibility that non-athletes. They know the rule, know they will tested and let their teammates down who are counting on them. Their actions affect more than just themselves. I would think especially if you are a scholarship athlete going to a great university that others are paying/borrowing money to attend you would be able to count your blessings and lay off the weed. And if you are not willing to do so or get your act together, guess what you are not going to be on scholarship for very long and then you can smoke all the weed you want.

I don't think you guys get it, scholarships are 1 year-renewable contracts between a student athlete and university. It does not mean that JMU or any other institution has taken a kid on forever. If the kid/young man or woman cannot follow the rules that scholarship will not be renewed and they can start paying like everyone else or move on.

(08-28-2013 02:43 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:18 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 09:53 AM)TheDudeWithTheJMUTat Wrote:  I'm getting tired of the "He messed up, but he really is a good kid" claims. First of all, he's an adult. Second of all, if a kid who works his butt off on the field, gets good grades, and doesn't do drugs is a good kid, than what is a second year player who fails multiple drug tests? Surely, he can't be a good kid too. I think the first hypothetical student athlete I mentioned would take exception to being lumped into the same category as a drug user with multiple offenses.

tl;dr: He isn't a kid and he isn't good.



Edit: I'm prepared for blow back from drug apologists. But I'm having a long, drawn-out Monday and it's not even noon yet. Bring it.

You can be good and smoke weed , if he was a student-athlete he wouldn't be getting tested and we would never know. They actually have a 1st offender statue for first time marijuana convictions. SO VA courts even give a little room for mistakes with weed. The FBI for employment asks if you have smoked weed within the last five years. I am attempting to figure out if you being sarcastic.

You hit the nail on the head....but they are Student-Athletes, and as such have a higher degree of responsibility that non-athletes. They know the rule, know they will tested and let their teammates down who are counting on them. Their actions affect more than just themselves. I would think especially if you are a scholarship athlete going to a great university that others are paying/borrowing money to attend you would be able to count your blessings and lay off the weed. And if you are not willing to do so or get your act together, guess what you are not going to be on scholarship for very long and then you can smoke all the weed you want.

I don't think you guys get it, scholarships are 1 year-renewable contracts between a student athlete and university. It does not mean that JMU or any other institution has taken a kid on forever. If the kid/young man or woman cannot follow the rules that scholarship will not be renewed and they can start paying like everyone else or move on.

If it was that easy grown men in NFL would risk their million dollar jobs for a blunt. Scholarships and status does not hide you from curiosity . What about the academic scholarship kids. I knew plenty of academic scholarship students who smoke weed all the time. This is not an excuse but you have to give people second chances. Young adults in college are just months away from living with their parents , of course some are going to try alcohol and weed. Don't let your expectations of what a student athlete is , be their reality.

(08-28-2013 03:01 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:43 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:18 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 09:53 AM)TheDudeWithTheJMUTat Wrote:  I'm getting tired of the "He messed up, but he really is a good kid" claims. First of all, he's an adult. Second of all, if a kid who works his butt off on the field, gets good grades, and doesn't do drugs is a good kid, than what is a second year player who fails multiple drug tests? Surely, he can't be a good kid too. I think the first hypothetical student athlete I mentioned would take exception to being lumped into the same category as a drug user with multiple offenses.

tl;dr: He isn't a kid and he isn't good.



Edit: I'm prepared for blow back from drug apologists. But I'm having a long, drawn-out Monday and it's not even noon yet. Bring it.

You can be good and smoke weed , if he was a student-athlete he wouldn't be getting tested and we would never know. They actually have a 1st offender statue for first time marijuana convictions. SO VA courts even give a little room for mistakes with weed. The FBI for employment asks if you have smoked weed within the last five years. I am attempting to figure out if you being sarcastic.

You hit the nail on the head....but they are Student-Athletes, and as such have a higher degree of responsibility that non-athletes. They know the rule, know they will tested and let their teammates down who are counting on them. Their actions affect more than just themselves. I would think especially if you are a scholarship athlete going to a great university that others are paying/borrowing money to attend you would be able to count your blessings and lay off the weed. And if you are not willing to do so or get your act together, guess what you are not going to be on scholarship for very long and then you can smoke all the weed you want.

I don't think you guys get it, scholarships are 1 year-renewable contracts between a student athlete and university. It does not mean that JMU or any other institution has taken a kid on forever. If the kid/young man or woman cannot follow the rules that scholarship will not be renewed and they can start paying like everyone else or move on.

If it was that easy grown men in NFL would risk their million dollar jobs for a blunt. Scholarships and status does not hide you from curiosity . What about the academic scholarship kids. I knew plenty of academic scholarship students who smoke weed all the time. This is not an excuse but you have to give people second chances. Young adults in college are just months away from living with their parents , of course some are going to try alcohol and weed. Don't let your expectations of what a student athlete is , be their reality.

Wake up - they are given 2nd, 3rd, if not 4th chances. Typically you do not get to the point of a suspension on the first infraction. It takes multiple failed tests to get suspended and the university does provide counseling/resources to help you with your 'problem'. These young men have to take some personal responsibilty. Decide what matters to them and if smoking weed is more important fine, but you will not be part of this team.

It is very clear you do not think it is a big deal, but at this time it is a team rule and illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is no different than a team rule that says you must attend class and team study hours (of other than the fact that it is illegal). If you break team rules you get disciplined and then suspended if you cannot adjust your behavior. Another news flash for you, high school athletic programs are moving more and more to drug testing athletes too and guess what if you get a positive test you ain't gonna be lacing up the cleats on Friday night under the lights there either.

Here is another eye-opener for you - academic scholarships come with strings/rules as well. And if you do not follow them you will lose that as well. Maybe drug testing is not one of those, but it is for the athletic teams at JMU. But if you run afoul of the law I just bet that may have an impact on the aforementioned academic scholarships.

It is all about personal responsibility - there are rules everywhere in our lives from the time we are born until the time we die and if you break those rules there are usually consequences.

I woke up a longs time ago , I just believe in giving them second chances . Between the ages of 16-25 you go thru all kinds of changes. Weed has a bad stigma with it , hence the outrage. I just don't think kicking them off the tem would help them in long run.

And you stated here is and eye opener for me , but they don't get tested for marijuana and that is what we are talking about now. Of course I know their are educational requirements , I was offer academic scholarships out of high school. Young adults come to college and drink and smoke. We need to mentor to this students to make sure they are able to move on from thier college experience and become good working citizens. Ask bill Clinton

http://www.jmu.edu/pubsafety/wm_library/...l2013_.pdf

Just look the the incidents only in April

(08-28-2013 03:31 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  I woke up a longs time ago , I just believe in giving them second chances . Between the ages of 16-25 you go thru all kinds of changes. Weed has a bad stigma with it , hence the outrage. I just don't think kicking them off the tem would help them in long run.

And you stated here is and eye opener for me , but they don't get tested for marijuana and that is what we are talking about now. Of course I know their are educational requirements , I was offer academic scholarships out of high school. Young adults come to college and drink and smoke. We need to mentor to this students to make sure they are able to move on from thier college experience and become good working citizens. Ask bill Clinton

http://www.jmu.edu/pubsafety/wm_library/...l2013_.pdf

Just look the the incidents only in April

As has already been pointed out to you, if suspended he would have already gotten his 2nd chance.

No , they get tested once a year. He is a soph. How would this be his second chance. Where did y'all get that from. Lol

(08-28-2013 08:14 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  No , they get tested once a year. He is a soph. How would this be his second chance. Where did y'all get that from. Lol

Based off of what happened with JT, it was reported he was tested early in summer camp, along with all the team, and failed. He received some sort of warning. Then, another test was given to him in the middle of the season, he failed again. He was then suspended.

I expect something similar has taken place with IF.

(08-28-2013 08:14 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  No , they get tested once a year. He is a soph. How would this be his second chance. Where did y'all get that from. Lol

I agree that this could be a second/third chance (first time warning, 2nd game suspensions, third removal/indefinite suspension). Hotrod, i believe school can test more than once a year? The school has its own student athlete testing policy apart from the NCAA's PEDs and Jmu definitely tests include THC. Previously failed tests are certain to be followed up, or you would really, really be an idiot to ever fail a drug test if you knew that you would only be tested once a year, every august when football camp starts. Its possible he failed one last year (warning) and/or since he redshirted there were no games to suspend him. I dont think IF even started camp this year.

The athlete drug debate makes no sense to me, esp when people start making excuses about fully matured male brains.... we all learn right from wrong and how to follow rules at an early age. The brain study mostly says males under 25 dont see big picture type analytics yet.... how is this an excuse for not following the rules? If my three year old knows she can't push her 1 year old brother without getting popped or a timeout session, how the $#@+ can a college age kid not understand consequences of their actions? getting high + drug test = potential consequences.

I am not saying he is a bad kid. I knew kids that smoked up and they were / are not bad. A better adjective is idiotic for putting himself in this position, as i assume he wants to still play football and keep a scholarship. JT was an idiot as well, but not necessarilly a bad person for smoking. The reason i use the word idiot is bc they know they are subject to drug testing. A reg. student is not subject to a regular testing program, so it is less idiotic for them.

I commanded 18 year old Soldiers, or as some would say kids, and a couple made serious mistakes and failed drug tests. One was abusing pain killer/opiate and the other self admittedly made a one time peer pressure stupid party mistake and knew he was in trouble before he even pissed in the cup. In counseling these soldiers, both knew their decisions were dumb/idiotic and knew there was a chance they would get caught. Both lost their jobs.

(08-28-2013 10:01 PM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 08:14 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  No , they get tested once a year. He is a soph. How would this be his second chance. Where did y'all get that from. Lol

I agree that this could be a second/third chance (first time warning, 2nd game suspensions, third removal/indefinite suspension). Hotrod, i believe school can test more than once a year? The school has its own student athlete testing policy apart from the NCAA's PEDs and Jmu definitely tests include THC. Previously failed tests are certain to be followed up, or you would really, really be an idiot to ever fail a drug test if you knew that you would only be tested once a year, every august when football camp starts. Its possible he failed one last year (warning) and/or since he redshirted there were no games to suspend him. I dont think IF even started camp this year.

The athlete drug debate makes no sense to me, esp when people start making excuses about fully matured male brains.... we all learn right from wrong and how to follow rules at an early age. The brain study mostly says males under 25 dont see big picture type analytics yet.... how is this an excuse for not following the rules? If my three year old knows she can't push her 1 year old brother without getting popped or a timeout session, how the $#@+ can a college age kid not understand consequences of their actions? getting high + drug test = potential consequences.

I am not saying he is a bad kid. I knew kids that smoked up and they were / are not bad. A better adjective is idiotic for putting himself in this position, as i assume he wants to still play football and keep a scholarship. JT was an idiot as well, but not necessarilly a bad person for smoking. The reason i use the word idiot is bc they know they are subject to drug testing. A reg. student is not subject to a regular testing program, so it is less idiotic for them.

I commanded 18 year old Soldiers, or as some would say kids, and a couple made serious mistakes and failed drug tests. One was abusing pain killer/opiate and the other self admittedly made a one time peer pressure stupid party mistake and knew he was in trouble before he even pissed in the cup. In counseling these soldiers, both knew their decisions were dumb/idiotic and knew there was a chance they would get caught. Both lost their jobs.

I would never compare the military to athletics, in reality this is just a game. But we need not forget how some of us were when we were in college on our own. I won't call them bad kids unless I know them to be of that nature. Some young adults just make bad decisions on their own. We have to cut them some slack. This board can be quite harsh to a 19 yr old .