Florida OL arrested

#76
#76
hatvol96 said:
Uh, no. The number of UT players who have failed drug test without being suspended would overload this board. The UTAD's policy, by its terms, doesn't even mandate a suspension until there are multiple failed tests.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I could name a few prominent players on the team right now that have failed one or two tests and it was never made public.
 
#77
#77
hatvol96 said:
Uh, no. The number of UT players who have failed drug test without being suspended would overload this board. The UTAD's policy, by its terms, doesn't even mandate a suspension until there are multiple failed tests.
Click to expand...
I knew not to go there..............:whistling:
 
#78
#78
justingroves said:
It just so happened it fell so he could play against UT.
Click to expand...

I realize how that looks, but it doesn't change the facts of what happened.

droski said:
You certianly would want to give a drug addict the benefit of the doubt. Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. As I understand it Thomas failed two drug tests. The argument that Thomas made to the disciplinary committee -- and with some validity -- was that the second tests was done too soon after the first such that both were positive from the same usage.

Thomas, in other words, argued convincingly that he was being labeled "an addict" off of one use of marijuana. I also seem to remember that before he was reinstated they sent the second sample off to check for whatever deterioration rate they look for in such things and it came back as unable to disprove Thomas' contention.

So they resinstated him on very strict terms. When he did not show up for a meeting, he violated the probation and was kicked off the team.



patrick said:
"appropriate due process"...

You may not know it but I am an attorney in Knoxville and have been in practice for 10 years.

Due process........ what the heck....... You can't tell me you really buy that whole story.

I know UT is not perfect and their players have done some pretty stupid things. However, I do know that had a UT Fball player tested positive for weed, he would have been suspended immediately. Meyer was doing the Carolina Shuffle around the issue.
Click to expand...

Meyer did suspend Thomas immediately and did so according to the policy. The problem was that Thomas appealed to the disciplinary as was his right. He made a legitimate argument that the second test was positive due to the same usage that caused the first positive and the university committee could not prove that wrong.

Would Thomas have sued if he had lost the appeal? I don't know, but probably not. Did they give him the benefit of the doubt? Probably so, but under the circumstances I think they felt they had to.

And then, rather than go to a counseling meeting, he went to visit friends in Jacksonville one Tuesday night and they brought the boom down on him and he was off the team.

As I say, I understand that it looked bad because of the timing relative to the Tennessee game. But appearances can be deceiving and in this case, from everything I've read, it was a whole lot more complicated than the simpleton approach of "They let him off suspension just to play Tennessee." On the facts, that is not supportable. Though as I say I don't expect anyone to let the facts get in the way of their self-serving conjecture.
 
#83
#83
hatvol96 said:
Uh, no. The number of UT players who have failed drug test without being suspended would overload this board. The UTAD's policy, by its terms, doesn't even mandate a suspension until there are multiple failed tests.
Click to expand...


I belive that UF's policy was the same. A first failed drug test got you on probation and guaranteed further tests with more frequency. Thomas failed his second, but the timeframe between the two left open the possibility that the two positives were from the same episode of doobage.

Thomas was initially suspended pursuant to policy. But he appealed, and he prevailed on the contention that the durg tests might be from the same use and so under the policy he was due to be reinstated. They did that, he blew the probation, and off he went.

I am not nearly so forgiving when it comes to gun use. As you may recall, when some footbal team member fired a gun through the wall of his apartment "by mistake" and then other guns were found among his roomates cars and what not, I was close to wanting them off the team. I really hate the thug image it allows them to perpetuate.

This most recent episode, as reported, is firing a gun in anger for purposes of scaring your counterpart in some sort of altercation. If that is so, I would be pretty unhappy if Meyer did not kick him off the team. I leave open the possibility of a lengthy suspension if there is more to the story. But its a big deal, no doubt about it.
 
#87
#87
Regardless of your stance on drugs being legalized, if someone that's paying for your school tells you not to do something, you had better not do it.
 
#88
#88
I'm betting that he will be suspended for the Western Kentucky and Troy game. Play against UT, Ole Miss & Auburn then be benched again for Louisiana State.

This is how Urban rolls. Urban knows how to send a message.
 
#89
#89
justingroves said:
Regardless of your stance on drugs being legalized, if someone that's paying for your school tells you not to do something, you had better not do it.
Click to expand...

My guess is most schools let a lot more stuff slide than the average fan would be comfortable with.
 
#91
#91
Septic said:
I'm betting that he will be suspended for the Western Kentucky and Troy game. Play against UT, Ole Miss & Auburn then be benched again for Louisiana State.

This is how Urban rolls. Urban knows how to send a message.
Click to expand...


Even if I am wrong and Meyer is going to wriggle out of having to kick him off the team, I can't see him doing something so transparent.

In fact, given the furor over the Thomas situation of being suspended but reinstated for UT, then suspended again and then kicked off the team, I think that it was so obvious a ploy as to be TOO obvious. And therefore lends credibility to the reports on how the Thomas incident unfolded.
 
#92
#92
"And then, rather than go to a counseling meeting, he went to visit friends in Jacksonville one Tuesday night and they brought the boom down on him and he was off the team."

And I guess you would contend that he went to Jacksonville to go to church with his friends.
 
#94
#94
lawgator1 said:
I realize how that looks, but it doesn't change the facts of what happened.



That's the problem. As I understand it Thomas failed two drug tests. The argument that Thomas made to the disciplinary committee -- and with some validity -- was that the second tests was done too soon after the first such that both were positive from the same usage.

Thomas, in other words, argued convincingly that he was being labeled "an addict" off of one use of marijuana. I also seem to remember that before he was reinstated they sent the second sample off to check for whatever deterioration rate they look for in such things and it came back as unable to disprove Thomas' contention.

So they resinstated him on very strict terms. When he did not show up for a meeting, he violated the probation and was kicked off the team.





Meyer did suspend Thomas immediately and did so according to the policy. The problem was that Thomas appealed to the disciplinary as was his right. He made a legitimate argument that the second test was positive due to the same usage that caused the first positive and the university committee could not prove that wrong.

Would Thomas have sued if he had lost the appeal? I don't know, but probably not. Did they give him the benefit of the doubt? Probably so, but under the circumstances I think they felt they had to.

And then, rather than go to a counseling meeting, he went to visit friends in Jacksonville one Tuesday night and they brought the boom down on him and he was off the team.

As I say, I understand that it looked bad because of the timing relative to the Tennessee game. But appearances can be deceiving and in this case, from everything I've read, it was a whole lot more complicated than the simpleton approach of "They let him off suspension just to play Tennessee." On the facts, that is not supportable. Though as I say I don't expect anyone to let the facts get in the way of their self-serving conjecture.
Click to expand...
If you think all this is true, you could never become a judge because judges aren't suppose to be GULLIBLE!:)
 
#95
#95
patrick said:
"And then, rather than go to a counseling meeting, he went to visit friends in Jacksonville one Tuesday night and they brought the boom down on him and he was off the team."

And I guess you would contend that he went to Jacksonville to go to church with his friends.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. He might have gone to feed the homeless, volunteer at a nursing home, mentor some inner city youth, traffic in cocaine, rob a bank, or blow up an abortion clinic. It doesn't matter. He was put on a tight leash and broke the deal they cut with him to give him the benefit of the doubt on the second drug test.

If anything, the way it happened suggests to me strongly that they did not believe him, but felt that their hands were tied and that they had to reinstate him, knowing he was likely to blow it. And he did not disappoint.
 
#96
#96
utfantilidie said:
If you think all this is true, you could never become a judge because judges aren't suppose to be GULLIBLE!:)
Click to expand...


Funny. But this is the way it was reported over a fairly lengthy period of time as it was happening so I do tend to believe it. Plus it makes sense.

I am certain that Meyer was pissed he'd been made to look bad, felt bad for Thomas that he blew such a great opportunity, and doesn't want to heap more bad on the kid for screwing the pooch.
 
#97
#97
Now if we could just figure a way to get 4-5 more olinemen to dumb it up we'd have a good chance at shuttin down that tebow keeper play.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top