The CardBoard
Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football (/thread-8630.html)

Pages: 1 2

Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - StanFan88 - 01-09-2015

WR Derron Carrington was suspended after failing a drug test for marijuana.  Did not get on the plane to Dallas.

How f'ing stupid can you be?  Stop hanging out with Josh Gordon!

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12144022/darren-carrington-oregon-ducks-suspended-national-title-game-failed-drug-test

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - Bruce Wang - 01-09-2015

Looking at the pot stickers on their next opponents' helmets during film study must have had a subliminal effect.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - BobK - 01-09-2015

WBB recruiting his sister.  Now parents can say you must go to Stanford.  :)

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - CompSci87 - 01-09-2015

(01-09-2015, 07:24 PM)Publius link Wrote:Looking at the pot stickers on their next opponents' helmets during film study must have had a subliminal effect.

Heehee, when I saw those in the semifinal game I thought "pot?" too, until I remembered Ohio State is the Buckeyes.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - Jskass - 01-09-2015

well I was glad the sister had his athletic genes, let's hope she has more in the common sense department -- often girls DO mature faster than guys, right?
BTW, we are recruiting a lot but really only have 2 slots open (other than Russell Wilson's sister)...

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - 82 Card - 01-10-2015

I don't understand why a player should be suspended for pot. It's not a performance enhancing drug. Do they suspend players under 21 for alcohol?

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - ChicagoCard - 01-10-2015

(01-09-2015, 10:40 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=11513.msg110459#msg110459 date=1420856697]
Looking at the pot stickers on their next opponents' helmets during film study must have had a subliminal effect.

Heehee, when I saw those in the semifinal game I thought "pot?" too, until I remembered Ohio State is the Buckeyes.
[/quote]

You aren't the only one. Police in Tennessee got confused on one occasion too.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - Bruce Wang - 01-10-2015

(01-09-2015, 10:21 PM)BobK link Wrote:WBB recruiting his sister.  Now parents can say you must go to Stanford.  :)

If parents expect that Stanford or any elite school for that matter is some sort of drug-free nirvana, they will be sorely disappointed. 

In a way, Stanford was the birth place of the modern drug culture.  Ken Kesey was a grad student living on The Row when he started experimenting with LSD.

I guess we all know Stanford wasn't/ isn't drug free - Redrum - 01-10-2015

That's not the point.  The point is this player willingly took on the obligation -- for the Oregon program-- that he would follow the rules.  And at the peak of Oregon's national football aspirations he couldn't hold it together.  Stupid.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - stupac2 - 01-10-2015

(01-10-2015, 02:28 AM)82 Card link Wrote:I don't understand why a player should be suspended for pot. It's not a performance enhancing drug. Do they suspend players under 21 for alcohol?

I'm sure the NCAA would if alcohol weren't metabolized too quickly to show up on any kind of test. I mean, showing up drunk to a drug test would take stupid to a new level.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - CowboyIndian - 01-10-2015

(01-09-2015, 07:24 PM)Publius link Wrote:Looking at the pot stickers on their next opponents' helmets during film study must have had a subliminal effect.

They gave him the munchies?
[Image: pkg-potstickers-chicken.jpg]

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - CrazedZooChimp - 01-10-2015

(01-10-2015, 02:28 AM)82 Card link Wrote:I don't understand why a player should be suspended for pot. It's not a performance enhancing drug. Do they suspend players under 21 for alcohol?

Probably, it's illegal in both cases (as demonstrated by all my friends who managed to get MiP citations in school).  I think the NCAA at least pretends to punish people who commit crimes.

And yet... - Redrum - 01-10-2015

Garvin makes an argument against an agreement made under pretty libertarian circumstances.  The players were free to turn down the Stanford (or any school) offer of a scholarship.  They freely agreed to abide by the rules.  The sullied or pristine state of the coaches and university officials has no bearing on the contract itself.  We can savor the irony, but that's about it. 
If the Oregon coaches are uneven or unfair in their application of enforcement among team members, that is another issue that goes to the integrity of the program.  So far the NCAA has been, ummm....barely active and uneven in its policing of program integrity issues.



Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - Bruce Wang - 01-10-2015

(01-09-2015, 10:40 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=11513.msg110459#msg110459 date=1420856697]
Looking at the pot stickers on their next opponents' helmets during film study must have had a subliminal effect.

Heehee, when I saw those in the semifinal game I thought "pot?" too, until I remembered Ohio State is the Buckeyes.
[/quote]

I wear a red shirt with the state of Ohio made up by those helmet stickers.  Older people give me the disapproving or confused (why is this otherwise clean cut looking middle aged Asian guy promoting marijuana?).  I get the "right on" look from young people.  People from Ohio come up to me and say "O-H" and after I reply, they say cool shirt.

Re: And yet... - washingtonismoney - 01-10-2015

(01-10-2015, 12:02 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Garvin makes an argument against an agreement made under pretty libertarian circumstances.  The players were free to turn down the Stanford (or any school) offer of a scholarship.  They freely agreed to abide by the rules.  The sullied or pristine state of the coaches and university officials has no bearing on the contract itself.  We can savor the irony, but that's about it. 
If the Oregon coaches are uneven or unfair in their application of enforcement among team members, that is another issue that goes to the integrity of the program.  So far the NCAA has been, ummm....barely active and uneven in its policing of program integrity issues.

Yeah, but what he's saying is not that these are the rules, take them or leave them, but that the rules are stupid. Which they are. For consumers, pot will either be decriminalized or legalized in the U.S. in ten to fifteen years.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - 82 Card - 01-10-2015

Back in my day, very few students didn't use pot occasionally. The campus police looked the other way.  I don't remember anyone getting busted.  The student section would have white punks on dope t-shirts.

The white punks on dope shirts are not around much anymore but I doubt that the students stopped using pot. Stanford wants its athletes to live with these pot smoking students but tells them they cannot play if any trace of pot is found in their system. To comply with this, the athlete would have to avoid any student parties so that they don't risk inhaling second hand smoke. Might as well require them to have crew cuts too. I'm sure that would make the helmets fit better or something.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - 2 for 2028 - 01-10-2015

This was in 1992, but I remember that when I signed the NCAA contract I had a choice of whether to accede to drug testing or not.  Is that no longer the case?

It doesn't matter whether legal or illegal - Redrum - 01-10-2015

Any school can impose its special rules or stupid rules (or hold to old standards) and its still a free choice. There might be a lot of coaches in America who don't want their kids using drugs (for logical reasons or less-than-logical reasons) regardless of what is legal or illegal.  If a kid wants to consider whether a school allows or bans marijuana use, they're free to consider that in their school decision... and explain it to their parents.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - JeffInCorvallis - 01-10-2015

The NCAA can hold student-athletes accountable to whatever rules they want (and I actually support this one) but it would be interesting if this one occurred after July 1 when recreational marijuana is legal in Oregon.

Re: Today in opponent attrition: Oregon football - 82 Card - 01-10-2015

(01-10-2015, 03:01 PM)2 for 2028 link Wrote:This was in 1992, but I remember that when I signed the NCAA contract I had a choice of whether to accede to drug testing or not.  Is that no longer the case?

You came in when Hill v. NCAA was working its way through the California courts. In 1990, Stanford athletes, eventually supported by the university, challenged NCAA mandatory drug testing. The challenge was successful in Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. However,  the California Supreme Court sided with the NCAA in a January 1994 decision. After that, Stanford no longer had legal cover for refusing to follow NCAA rules.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/01/28/twenty-years-ago-today-the-california-supreme-court-upheld-mandatory-drug-testing-in-college-sports/