Bill Walton was a stoner- he would have hated NCAA surprise tests.

Do you think Walton ever stopped?

(04-22-2014 09:02 PM)brizzock Wrote:  Do you think Walton ever stopped?

I doubt it. He was Jeff Spicoli w/ basketball skills.

I will never change my mind on how ridiculous it is to test athletes for weed. There is absolutely zero reason for it. If they get tested, every student might as well get tested. It's not a performance enhancing drug. Alcohol is probably worse. I realize it's just dumb to do it when you know it's against the rules but there's no point to it in the first place.

(04-22-2014 09:48 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I will never change my mind on how ridiculous it is to test athletes for weed. There is absolutely zero reason for it. If they get tested, every student might as well get tested. It's not a performance enhancing drug. Alcohol is probably worse. I realize it's just dumb to do it when you know it's against the rules but there's no point to it in the first place.

*sigh*

Yea, sure. Why enforce laws? Kid may be 17-18, but so what? Right? Blow a li'l smoke, why worry about alcohol laws, who cares?!? Not like they represent the University or are expected to perform on occasion... Yep, dope does a body good. Let's give it a pass.

(04-22-2014 08:32 PM)Jmubarkers Wrote:  God good I didn't say it was a 100% in ink, I would actually post who and why someone in admin told me a guy might be ineligible but it's in house and posting that info might effect the players status next year.

And if I'm 8/10 on info I'll take that any day than continuos speculation.

And someone did fail a drug test but seeing as it's first time and no suspension comes with it I won't post the kids name.

I know that a lot of your info has turned out to be spot on (kudos for that) and that you've stated multiple times that you want the best for the program and think Brady is a solid X and Os coach and good man but this is where you lose me a little. I hope you realize how this comes off- you seem like you are piling on when your subject says another one bites the dust and then you back track and say you didn't say it was 100% someone was leaving. Also I'm not sure if other schools have similar policies around drug tests but a first failed test if true is a warning at JMU and a non event in terms of a suspension- so bottom line if you didn't mention it and the kid never failed another test we wouldn't ever know about it and therefore not think that the coaching staff is "lazy" or the program is going down the tubes.

To me your post here comes off as a guy with an axe to grind who may have wanted to be part of the coaching staff, may be a frustrated wantabe assistant coach and or a frustrated wantabe ex player- sorry just calling it like I see it- and posts like this aren't obviously condusive to the success of the program- now some could fairly say that ship has sailed, a change may be warranted, the admin screwed up again with the lame duck year, etc. I'm not saying things are rosy but just this type of post is where you lose me and go from a guy who wants the best and is trying to bring to light some real problems to a guy with an agenda who is piling on.

(04-22-2014 11:53 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:48 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I will never change my mind on how ridiculous it is to test athletes for weed. There is absolutely zero reason for it. If they get tested, every student might as well get tested. It's not a performance enhancing drug. Alcohol is probably worse. I realize it's just dumb to do it when you know it's against the rules but there's no point to it in the first place.

*sigh*

Yea, sure. Why enforce laws? Kid may be 17-18, but so what? Right? Blow a li'l smoke, why worry about alcohol laws, who cares?!? Not like they represent the University or are expected to perform on occasion... Yep, dope does a body good. Let's give it a pass.

JMU doesn't test it's employees twice a year .........

Whether it's "fair" doesn't matter. It's a rule-- you break it, there are consequences. BYU athletes (and students) can't have sex, caffeine, or alcohol as well. BYU has no problem with their enrollment. If you don't like the rules, then don't play college hoops!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-22-2014 08:18 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  everything he said in this thread was bogus. everything.

Lets look at that...

(04-22-2014 09:29 AM)Jmubarkers Wrote:  Pretty sure men's program will lose another freshman this off season.that leaves 4 scholarships to fill in a short recruiting period= offers to players not properly evaluated.

I will accept that this is "Bogus" but he definitely says "pretty sure" which is much, much, much, much, much more ambiguous than his normal inside info posts.

(04-22-2014 09:29 AM)Jmubarkers Wrote:  We have the laziest coaching staff simply put. The lack of paying attention to detail is comical.

This is a 100% True statement.

(04-22-2014 09:29 AM)Jmubarkers Wrote:  It's actually annoying never hearing good news from men's program.
Just depressing.

This is 100% True statement.

(04-22-2014 10:34 AM)Jmubarkers Wrote:  No one on current roster is facing any suspension for next season as of now.

This is 100% True statement.

(04-22-2014 10:34 AM)Jmubarkers Wrote:  The freshman leaving or facing ineligibility is solid student, if you look around on euro basketball boards you will figure it out.

50/50 comment here. If he was wrong about a player leaving, then he was still right that the player he was talking about is a solid student.

Suffice it to say, everything he said in this thread was NOT bogus. He made some really solid observations here.

(04-23-2014 01:08 AM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:53 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:48 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I will never change my mind on how ridiculous it is to test athletes for weed. There is absolutely zero reason for it. If they get tested, every student might as well get tested. It's not a performance enhancing drug. Alcohol is probably worse. I realize it's just dumb to do it when you know it's against the rules but there's no point to it in the first place.

*sigh*

Yea, sure. Why enforce laws? Kid may be 17-18, but so what? Right? Blow a li'l smoke, why worry about alcohol laws, who cares?!? Not like they represent the University or are expected to perform on occasion... Yep, dope does a body good. Let's give it a pass.

JMU doesn't test it's employees twice a year .........

But they are subject to testing... Also, it's not like the players are caught off guard. They know not to smoke and if they do, there are consequences.

(04-23-2014 07:32 AM)brizzock Wrote:  Whether it's "fair" doesn't matter. It's a rule-- you break it, there are consequences. BYU athletes (and students) can't have sex, caffeine, or alcohol as well. BYU has no problem with their enrollment. If you don't like the rules, then don't play college hoops!

I think the point is that the admin can change the rules, be proactive in a changing environment. I agree that as long as the student-athletes know the rules coming in that the rules should be fully enforced. The point is to change the rules! Be on the leading edge of change for once.

All students represent JMU but they are not tested as a condition of enrollment. Why are student athletes singled out? I get testing for anything that can be considered performance enhancing, but the NCAA already agreed its not performance enhancing ( NCAA says Weed isnt performance enhancing ) Honest question...

Ok, that's fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good lord, has this really went off topic to the point that it is JMU's fault for enforcing it's own policy of drug testing athletes....geez.

Bottom line is it's the law. And here is a news flash --- more and more high schools are doing the exact same testing every year.

(04-23-2014 08:01 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  Good lord, has this really went off topic to the point that it is JMU's fault for enforcing it's own policy of drug testing athletes....geez.

Bottom line is it's the law. And here is a news flash --- more and more high schools are doing the exact same testing every year.

Not talking about high schools which deal with the under 18 crowd- talking about college. I get that it is the law (albeit that is changing quickly - state by state) but my question is this, and only this...

Why are we testing student athletes and not all students then?

Is it because they are getting a scholarship? If so are we testing all students getting an academic scholarship?

Is it because they "represent the school", because all students do!

Is it "just because thats the way it always has been"? Because that is a very poor reason to continue a course of action. I could give no less than a thousand examples of how people wanted to keep doing things the way they always did but someone stepped up and changed the rules. Examples vary from; Cars got safer and the speed limit increased to ending slavery.


... one quick addition - I am not taking a pro-marijuana stance here and want to make that clear. I am happy VA is still smoke free, but I am pushing for equality in rules and treatment of the students. Let the HPD and JMU police enforce the rules...

(04-23-2014 08:10 AM)JMU_Degenerate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:01 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  Good lord, has this really went off topic to the point that it is JMU's fault for enforcing it's own policy of drug testing athletes....geez.

Bottom line is it's the law. And here is a news flash --- more and more high schools are doing the exact same testing every year.

Not talking about high schools which deal with the under 18 crowd- talking about college. I get that it is the law (albeit that is changing quickly - state by state) but my question is this, and only this...

Why are we testing student athletes and not all students then?

Is it because they are getting a scholarship? If so are we testing all students getting an academic scholarship?

Is it because they "represent the school", because all students do!

Is it "just because thats the way it always has been"? Because that is a very poor reason to continue a course of action. I could give no less than a thousand examples of how people wanted to keep doing things the way they always did but someone stepped up and changed the rules. Examples vary from; Cars got safer and the speed limit increased to ending slavery.

I'm not in the administration so I don't know their reasoning. But, if an athlete on the football team is arrested for drug possession or drunk in public it makes big headlines. If the same charges are brought upon a "regular" student it doesn't make headlines, but the student could still get kicked out of school. While all affiliated with JMU represent the school, athletes are a much higher profile representative.

(04-23-2014 08:10 AM)JMU_Degenerate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:01 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  Good lord, has this really went off topic to the point that it is JMU's fault for enforcing it's own policy of drug testing athletes....geez.

Bottom line is it's the law. And here is a news flash --- more and more high schools are doing the exact same testing every year.

Not talking about high schools which deal with the under 18 crowd- talking about college. I get that it is the law (albeit that is changing quickly - state by state) but my question is this, and only this...

Why are we testing student athletes and not all students then?

Is it because they are getting a scholarship? If so are we testing all students getting an academic scholarship?

Is it because they "represent the school", because all students do!

Is it "just because thats the way it always has been"? Because that is a very poor reason to continue a course of action. I could give no less than a thousand examples of how people wanted to keep doing things the way they always did but someone stepped up and changed the rules. Examples vary from; Cars got safer and the speed limit increased to ending slavery.

A good starting point is b/c 'weed' is a banned drug by the NCAA. And as the majority of schools do, they prefer to do their testing 'in-house', I guess b/c no one really wants the NCAA snooping around your athletic department if they don't need to be there.

Other students are not tested b/c they are not subject to the NCAA eligibility rules for athletic participation. However, every scholarship has certain rules in order to continue your scholarship. For example, do you want JMU to hold it's athletes to the same academic standards that are in place for various academic scholarships. There are many academic scholarships that require maintaining a 3.0 GPA --- and athletes are not subject to that rule. Is that fair???? Bottom line is every scholarship has guidelines and expectations to keep it.

Also JMU's policy is pretty forgiving.
- 1st offense is a slap on the wrist (basically a warning)
- 2nd offense suspension for half the season
- 3rd offense your gone.

College is also about preparing young men and women for life and most jobs today require you to pass a drug test as part of employment (not all but most & weed is on the list of tested drugs in VA) and as a condition of employment (at most places) you can be drug tested at any time if there is suspicion of drug use. And employers are not gonna typically follow the 3 strikes approach.

Also - all JMU students must adhere to what has become a fairly strict 3 strikes approach to alcohol violations and I think 'drug offenses/arrests' are included in that policy.

haha. you guys have no idea.

Barkers knows though.

(04-23-2014 08:29 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  And as the majority of schools do, they prefer to do their testing 'in-house', I guess b/c no one really wants the NCAA snooping around your athletic department if they don't need to be there.

Good point.

(04-23-2014 09:11 AM)JMU_Degenerate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:29 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  And as the majority of schools do, they prefer to do their testing 'in-house', I guess b/c no one really wants the NCAA snooping around your athletic department if they don't need to be there.

Good point.

My question has always been , are the athletes obligated to take JMU's test or the NCAA. Or are they subject to both. Yes the easy thing to say is don't smoke. But the coaches are never tested.

(04-23-2014 09:21 AM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:11 AM)JMU_Degenerate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:29 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  And as the majority of schools do, they prefer to do their testing 'in-house', I guess b/c no one really wants the NCAA snooping around your athletic department if they don't need to be there.

Good point.

My question has always been , are the athletes obligated to take JMU's test or the NCAA. Or are they subject to both. Yes the easy thing to say is don't smoke. But the coaches are never tested.

My assumption is as a state employee - the coaches had to pass a drug test as a condition of employment (that should be a requirement if it is not) and are subject to a random drug test if warrated based on behavior/suspicion.

Yep the easy thing is too just not smoke --- and if their sport means as much to them as they claim then it seems like an easy decision. I am sure they don't like 5am workouts either but that is part of being a part of the team --- it is a team rule. And if they have bigger dreams like the NFL they don't give a pass on 'weed' either.