Moo U Dumpster Fire Thread

[geaux_sioux]

20 minutes ago, gundy1124 said:

From Article 1 - Part of North Dakota State and Alabama's programs, Newman entered this past season working for the two reigning national champions of the FCS and FBS, respectively. The Bison entered the season having won six of the last seven FCS titles, while the Crimson Tide had won five of the last nine at the FBS level. Both made it to their title games again with undefeated records.  North Dakota State, with Newman on its sidelines, went on to win its seventh title in eight years. Alabama, however, fell in a lopsided game against Clemson.

From Article 2 - Clemson athletic department managers immediately started asking questions in-house after three football players tested positive for the performance-enhancing drug ostarine just before the Cotton Bowl.

From Article 3- Recently, Ben joined Clemson Head Football Coach Dabo Swinney to kickoff Jon Gordon’s Power of Positive Summit that included Tony Robbins, Michael Hyatt, Lewis Howes, Tamika Catchings, Andy Andrews and other great speakers from around the world. Ben also serves as the Performance Coach for the record setting 5-straight Division I National Football Champion North Dakota State Bison.

Alabama - Ben Newman      NDSU - Ben Newman      Clemson - Ben Newman (I'm sure Sabin is pissed about this one)

It's pretty easy to connect the dots.  Has anyone else noticed that Clemson couldn't hang with the big boys then Ben Newman shows up.  Sure, you have to put up with his speeches and raw raw bull crap but the guy has the goods, that's for sure.  Clemson has gone so far to say it was food tampering by a 3rd party!!  At NDSU, one article and barely a follow-up.  No one serves up Ben, I guess he's that good.

This should be a sign in Fargo this year.

 

[Hammersmith]

I have to say that I find it amusing that the UND fans claiming to "defend" Brock and his family are actually calling them liars. And the NDSU fans are actually supporting the Robbins's family version of events. Makes me chuckle.

[southpaw]

22 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

I have to say that I find it amusing that the UND fans claiming to "defend" Brock and his family are actually calling them liars. And the NDSU fans are actually supporting the Robbins's family version of events. Makes me chuckle.

I have yet to see an NDSU fan here say they believe Robbins' when he says he took an illegal supplement. 

[choyt3]

Need to get the NDSU footballers on the 7up to avoid this mess apparently.

 

 

[Bison06]

1 hour ago, southpaw said:

I read the article very closely as you suggested. Two quotes calling it an Illegal supplement. Zero quotes  calling it a banned supplement.  That's a big difference. Fact is, according to the player all he took was something illegal. 

Caffeine is not considered unlawful by the NCAA. It is banned but not against the law. 

The player and parent both said it was illegal. You can deny that fact all you want but it's true. 

I’m not sure why you’re so adamant about the verbiage that BR and his mother used.

Nothing is “illegal” by the ncaa, they aren’t police or a court.

The NCAA has a banned substance list. Some things on that list are zero tolerance, others are dependent on the quantity found in the blood. None are “illegal” by the NCAA as they aren’t in the legal vs illegal business.

Since there have been no criminal charges against BR, I think it’s fair to draw the conclusion that he simply used the word illegal when he meant banned. Neither he nor his mother are attorneys who would be choosing their words much more carefully. 

And before you accuse me, I’m not calling BR or his mother a liar. I’m simply stating, given the circumstances, they likely used the word illegal, when the correct word would have been banned.

[bison73]

58 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

I’m not sure why you’re so adamant about the verbiage that BR and his mother used.

Nothing is “illegal” by the ncaa, they aren’t police or a court.

The NCAA has a banned substance list. Some things on that list are zero tolerance, others are dependent on the quantity found in the blood. None are “illegal” by the NCAA as they aren’t in the legal vs illegal business.

Since there have been no criminal charges against BR, I think it’s fair to draw the conclusion that he simply used the word illegal when he meant banned. Neither he nor his mother are attorneys who would be choosing their words much more carefully. 

And before you accuse me, I’m not calling BR or his mother a liar. I’m simply stating, given the circumstances, they likely used the word illegal, when the correct word would have been banned.

Correct.

[bison73]

1 hour ago, southpaw said:

I have yet to see an NDSU fan here say they believe Robbins' when he says he took an illegal supplement. 

He miss spoke.  As  was posted before. Youre hung up on the verbiage . It obvious they arent familiar with the meaning as it pertains to the NCAA.

That article was a long time ago. Im sure their wording would be much different now.

[Hammersmith]

1 hour ago, Bison06 said:

I’m not sure why you’re so adamant about the verbiage that BR and his mother used.

Nothing is “illegal” by the ncaa, they aren’t police or a court.

The NCAA has a banned substance list. Some things on that list are zero tolerance, others are dependent on the quantity found in the blood. None are “illegal” by the NCAA as they aren’t in the legal vs illegal business.

Since there have been no criminal charges against BR, I think it’s fair to draw the conclusion that he simply used the word illegal when he meant banned. Neither he nor his mother are attorneys who would be choosing their words much more carefully. 

And before you accuse me, I’m not calling BR or his mother a liar. I’m simply stating, given the circumstances, they likely used the word illegal, when the correct word would have been banned.

What the family was very clear about, and what NDSU also released, is that whatever the banned substance was, it was a stimulant. Which means everyone who is saying or inferring it was a steroid or ostarine is calling the family liars. (looking at you geaux_sioux, gundy, Mama Sue, Siouxphan, etc.) I'm willing to believe the supplement contained a stimulant other than caffeine, but that scenario doesn't make all that much sense given the family's other statements. (widespread use in the locker room vs. only one positive result in 72 tests during the 2018 playoffs)

But the reality is that true facts matter as much in threads like this(here or counterpart threads at BV) as they do in the world of politics(i.e. not at all).

[Nodak78]

15 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

What the family was very clear about, and what NDSU also released, is that whatever the banned substance was, it was a stimulant. Which means everyone who is saying or inferring it was a steroid or ostarine is calling the family liars. (looking at you geaux_sioux, gundy, Mama Sue, Siouxphan, etc.) I'm willing to believe the supplement contained a stimulant other than caffeine, but that scenario doesn't make all that much sense given the family's other statements. (widespread use in the locker room vs. only one positive result in 72 tests during the 2018 playoffs)

But the reality is that true facts matter as much in threads like this(here or counterpart threads at BV) as they do in the world of politics(i.e. not at all).

All facts are true or they wouldn't be facts. Just saying.

[Hammersmith]

1 minute ago, Nodak78 said:

All facts are true or they wouldn't be facts. Just saying.

I put that in as something of a half joke. Along the lines of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". If I was being completely serious, I would argue that you can use facts to manipulate an audience by only using those that support your (false)argument, while ignoring or suppressing any facts that contradict it(there's a regular poster on here that does this all the time). In that situation, true facts would be those that completely describe the situation without bias.

But that's more serious than we need to be in a smack thread.

[gundy1124]

32 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

What the family was very clear about, and what NDSU also released, is that whatever the banned substance was, it was a stimulant. Which means everyone who is saying or inferring it was a steroid or ostarine is calling the family liars. (looking at you geaux_sioux, gundy, Mama Sue, Siouxphan, etc.) I'm willing to believe the supplement contained a stimulant other than caffeine, but that scenario doesn't make all that much sense given the family's other statements. (widespread use in the locker room vs. only one positive result in 72 tests during the 2018 playoffs)

But the reality is that true facts matter as much in threads like this(here or counterpart threads at BV) as they do in the world of politics(i.e. not at all).

I am drawing my own conclusion based off information available, my past experiences, and sources.  The article itself has 2 sets of so called "facts".  So which are you picking?  (Changes daily for you guys, I know)

[southpaw]

5 hours ago, Bison06 said:

I’m not sure why you’re so adamant about the verbiage that BR and his mother used.

Nothing is “illegal” by the ncaa, they aren’t police or a court.

The NCAA has a banned substance list. Some things on that list are zero tolerance, others are dependent on the quantity found in the blood. None are “illegal” by the NCAA as they aren’t in the legal vs illegal business.

Since there have been no criminal charges against BR, I think it’s fair to draw the conclusion that he simply used the word illegal when he meant banned. Neither he nor his mother are attorneys who would be choosing their words much more carefully. 

And before you accuse me, I’m not calling BR or his mother a liar. I’m simply stating, given the circumstances, they likely used the word illegal, when the correct word would have been banned.

We were just told to read that article very carefully and take our green glasses off.

I did so and the family twice said it was an illegal supplement. But you and others seem very quick to say they misspoke. Perhaps you could take off your supplement tainted piss yellow glasses. 

I'm only going off what the article says. I'm not reading between the lines or trying to infer things, like you and other bizun fans. 

Can we infer that when they said supplement that they misspoke and didn't understand the verbiage between supplement and substance? 

And you're never going to get arrested or charged for failing an ncaa drug test. To believe that because there were no criminal charges means the supplement wasn't banned is being intentionally misleading. 

[bison73]

1 hour ago, southpaw said:

We were just told to read that article very carefully and take our green glasses off.

I did so and the family twice said it was an illegal supplement. But you and others seem very quick to say they misspoke. Perhaps you could take off your supplement tainted piss yellow glasses. 

I'm only going off what the article says. I'm not reading between the lines or trying to infer things, like you and other bizun fans. 

Can we infer that when they said supplement that they misspoke and didn't understand the verbiage between supplement and substance? 

And you're never going to get arrested or charged for failing an ncaa drug test. To believe that because there were no criminal charges means the supplement wasn't banned is being intentionally misleading. 

You can----and will infer what ever narrative you want. Youve done it from day one and will continue to do so regardless if its true or not.  Hammer nailed it.

[southpaw]

1 hour ago, bison73 said:

You can----and will infer what ever narrative you want. Youve done it from day one and will continue to do so regardless if its true or not.  Hammer nailed it.

I believe 100% what the family said. Every exact word. Do you? 

If not, then Hammer was wrong and you'll believe whatever narrative you think fits. 

If so, then your AD is lying and threw a student athlete under the bus to cover his ass.

[Siouxphan27]

4 hours ago, bison73 said:

You can----and will infer what ever narrative you want. Youve done it from day one and will continue to do so regardless if its true or not.  Hammer nailed it.

Can we, though?   Because it seems you and the rest of the turd thought police show up here like clockwork to tell everyone how to think, even though you all have no idea yourselves what it was, and are making just as many assumptions and inferences as we are. 

As I said several pages ago, ndsu could have made an official statement explaining what it was, which would clear up all speculation.  They chose not to, which in itself speaks volumes.  

[Bison06]

5 hours ago, southpaw said:

I believe 100% what the family said. Every exact word. Do you? 

If not, then Hammer was wrong and you'll believe whatever narrative you think fits. 

If so, then your AD is lying and threw a student athlete under the bus to cover his ass.

 

7 hours ago, southpaw said:

We were just told to read that article very carefully and take our green glasses off.

I did so and the family twice said it was an illegal supplement. But you and others seem very quick to say they misspoke. Perhaps you could take off your supplement tainted piss yellow glasses. 

I'm only going off what the article says. I'm not reading between the lines or trying to infer things, like you and other bizun fans. 

Can we infer that when they said supplement that they misspoke and didn't understand the verbiage between supplement and substance? 

And you're never going to get arrested or charged for failing an ncaa drug test. To believe that because there were no criminal charges means the supplement wasn't banned is being intentionally misleading. 

So if you believe every word he says, tell me which supplements are illegal by ncaa standards.

The term illegal does not exist in the ncaa vernacular. 

 

[UND1983]

18 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

 

So if you believe every word he says, tell me which supplements are illegal by ncaa standards.

The term illegal does not exist in the ncaa vernacular. 

 

Depends what the definition of "is" is.  Illegal, banned, who gives a sh*t.  

[Bison06]

9 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Depends what the definition of "is" is.  Illegal, banned, who gives a sh*t.  

If you’ve been reading along, illegal vs banned are the terms southpaw is drawing all his conclusions from.

So...southpaw gives a sh*t evidently.

I simply see it as a kid and his mom using the wrong term since the word illegal means nothing to the ncaa in this context.

[Mama Sue]

Siouxphan27.....you are spot on... no official statement REEKS of a cover up...I wonder how those donors and businesses all feel... certainly that natty trophy is tarnished a little, maybe a lot?

[Really?]

Mama Sue, if you are not prepared to tell us who else was with you on the grassy knoll, please give it a rest.

[UND1983]

Why did the Forum suddenly stop reporting on this anyway?  What was the substance, who gave it to him, who authorized it?  

Appears they once again stopped short of losing their practice access.  Waggin' the dog.

Come to think of it - why didn't the Forum reporters tell us Robbins was suspended for the championship game until hours before it started?  Rumor was spreading on Wednesday of game week.

[Bison06]

11 minutes ago, Mama Sue said:

Siouxphan27.....you are spot on... no official statement REEKS of a cover up...I wonder how those donors and businesses all feel... certainly that natty trophy is tarnished a little, maybe a lot?

You mean the national championship that BR didn’t play in? 

 

[Siouxphan27]

8 minutes ago, Really? said:

Mama Sue, if you are not prepared to tell us who else was with you on the grassy knoll, please give it a rest.

That’s an awfully bold statement.  Get it?   

[Siouxphan27]

13 minutes ago, Mama Sue said:

Siouxphan27.....you are spot on... no official statement REEKS of a cover up...I wonder how those donors and businesses all feel... certainly that natty trophy is tarnished a little, maybe a lot?

The legitimacy of their title run certainly has taken a blow with this cover up. 

[Siouxphan27]

2 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

You mean the national championship that BR didn’t play in? 

 

“Throughout the locker room.”