The Sicatoka

Bison06: You must admit the Ben Newman link is very curious.

Did someone just say "Clemson"? On a whim ... Suspensions of three Clemson players upheld after B samples test positive And then I find this ...

Hate to quote myself, but from that page ... Pouring ... what.

Isn't that another Ben Newman client? (Hint here.)

NDSU says they test their own on their own. Could they be "tuning", making sure they stay under detectable levels during specific periods of time?

I give you that. The NCAA is just looking at outcome. They don't care how it got there, just that it was.

Can we agree that the NCAA's line is doing something intentionally that gives an unfair advantage, be it stimulant or steroid?

Here we agree. I suspect intentional weasel-wordage as well.

Is that why they said this Newman fellow is "reimbursed" but stopped short of saying they are on the payroll? But if Newman is an independent contractor, isn't he being compensated by NDSU (but not officially on staff and payroll). Or is he volunteering.

In this context and conversation, no, it's not. This is the NCAA's sandbox. Their black/white rules are all that matter. Want to have the other chat? Our Community forum is available to talk about the community impacts. Or if you want to argue against the punitive NCAA black/white rules? There's a forum for that also. Free free there as well. But here, this conversation is framed in the NCAA rules domain.

Your team and player put you there.

Yes I do. You were shading "stimulants" as better than "steroids". In the NCAA's shades both are black on a black/white scale. And your beef's not with me. It's in Indianapolis. Their scale.

Might you test your own people to learn some of these rates and side effects?

I enjoy the "explaining" and how it's done at the Y. The NCAA ain't the Y. And how it's lesser because it's not the worst intentional thing that could've been done. Getting caught sucks.

I got $20 on the over.

No, I'm looking at this from the direction the NCAA would take. Ain't much fun to have the NCAA stink-eye on ya.

You ask some really ugly questions there.

Black and white. No nuance. And you know going in. And the coaches do too.

But you can link to it.

You just stated that an unapproved agent was used intentionally to gain an advantage. <-- What does one call that? No nuance there, no 'pre workout' qualifiers, no "stimulant v. anabolic", according to the NCAA. And they get to decide, not you or I. Next, just because you see it at the Y? C'mon, that is precisely the "everybody does it" defense. These staff and players know they're at a whole different standard (the NCAA). They failed and got caught. Own it.

Lack of institutional control? I've heard that phrase used somewhere ... hmmm ...

OK. Here's another great portion. Not to the NCAA. The NCAA is black and white. The NCAA is not nuanced when it comes to this topic.

The "everybody does it" defense?

https://www.bennewman.net/coaching/ , then scroll to the bottom.

If you play you get one; if you are benched you get the other.