Koulton Houston and the NCAA’s letter of the law

Yesterday, I noticed some commenters here, along with others on the Internet, claiming an understanding of the stance the NCAA was taking in not allowing Houston’s eligibility – Mark Emmert’s concern that making an exception for Houston “would undermine the purpose of the drug testing program.”

In response, I and others pointed out that the NCAA has exercised discretion in applying the spirit of its rules and not the letter when it felt circumstances warranted it, the Penn State sanctions being the most recent example of that approach.  The thing about it is, though, that you don’t have to wander nearly that far afield to find such an example because the NCAA has already done so in Houston’s own case.

Houston, from Buford, Ga., was an early enrollee at Georgia in January 2010. He failed an NCAA drug test April 13, 2010, triggering an automatic one-year suspension. He failed a second NCAA drug test Feb. 2, 2011, and the organization initially handed him a lifetime ban from NCAA participation.

However, Georgia successfully won an appeal by proving with results of its own testing that the drug had never fully left Houston’s system and that “the second positive drug test demonstrated residual from the initial drug use rather than re-use,” Courson wrote in a July 9 letter to McGarity. “Fortunately for our student-athlete, we have our own institutional drug testing to protect him from an unfair and unsupported accusation.”

Not only did that exhaustive testing process help Georgia win its appeal, the school also touted its results as evidence that Houston has not taken any performance-enhancing drugs in the meantime.

So, to summarize:  (1) the NCAA ruled that Houston should receive a lifetime ban due to a second positive drug test result; (2)  the school appealed based on scientific evidence it compiled showing that Houston wasn’t taking steroids; (3) the school’s appeal was successful; (4) the school appealed again, asking for the player’s reinstatement based on scientific evidence it compiled that Houston wasn’t taking steroids and that the continued presence of the drug in his system doesn’t give him a competitive advantage… and (5) Emmert purports to be surprised by Georgia’s request.

Sorry, but one of those things doesn’t follow, and it’s not Georgia’s request for reinstatement.  If in the NCAA’s eyes the continued presence of the drug in his system doesn’t automatically disqualify him for life, I find it hard to see how the same excused presence together with a showing that there is no competitive advantage from the drug in Houston’s system should keep him from playing now.  Then again, I’m not Mark Emmert.

But maybe somebody should ask Mark Emmert exactly what the purpose of the NCAA’s drug testing program is these days, because in Houston’s case it seems to be more about justifying its own existence than being about protecting competitive balance.

**************************************************************************************

UPDATE:  What we could use right now is some really lazy thinking.  Fortunately, that’s why we have ESPN’s bloggers.

Unfortunately, the NCAA can’t make an exception for Houston. He’s already escaped a lifetime ban after his second positive test, and while you have to feel for Houston, making an exception for him would open up a new can of worms for the NCAA. The NCAA doesn’t want to have to deal with similar cases each year because you never know which ones could be true or fabiricated.

I’m not saying Houston’s is fabricated, but if he were allowed to play, what’s to stop other athletes from experimenting to see if they can use a similar story to slip by the NCAA?

Umm… how about that they wouldn’t have their schools running multiple tests to confirm that no further steroid usage had occurred?  And submitting data that was sufficient to allow the NCAA to withdraw a lifetime ban?

About these ads

80 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Science Marches Onward, The NCAA

80 responses to “Koulton Houston and the NCAA’s letter of the law

  1. LRGK9

    The letter of the Law kills; the spirit of the Law gives life.

  2. Chopdawg

    If the NCAA agrees with us that the player hasn’t used–since the incident of use that triggered his one-year suspension–they should have no choice but to re-instate him, according to their own rules.

    Unless, of course, they’re applying the “double-secret suspension” rule.

    • Governor Milledge

      But you can’t hold [Kolton] responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted [doctors]. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole [recruiting process]? And if the whole [recruiting process] is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our [D-1 football system] in general? I put it to you, [Emmert] – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

      • The other Doug

        well done.

      • AusDawg85

        That’s so beautiful I want to get a [Messerschmidt] and bomb [Pearl Harbor]!

      • Excellent points and well stated.

        Here are a few other quick points:

        1) The test the NCAA is conducting is way too sensitive.
        2) The test the NCAA is conducting is looking for metabolites of nanderlone (non-performance enhancing), not the nanderlone (performance enhancing) itself.

        The nanderlone metabolites are stored in fat cells and slowly released over time. There is NO performance enhancing benefit to having a trace amount of these metabolites in one’s fat cells. That’s not opinion, that’s basic biology.
        The fact that the NCAA is using such a hypersensitive test does nothing to bolster its claims of a tough zero-tolerence policy in respect to PE drugs. It does however dramatically increase the likelihood of false positives, because many metabolites of PE drugs can be produced in vivo from other sources.

    • What fresh hell is this?

      It’s not only whether he has used since the initial test, it’s also a question of whether it gives Koulton a competitive advantage.
      From what I understand most in the medical community believe it does not. Has the NCAA agreed with this view? If so, they are a walking contradiction….something they are very good at.

  3. Derek

    I’m wondering whether this public disclosure is the lead in to a lawsuit. It seems to me that the application of the rule that triggers such a substantial penalty must have some rational connection to some policy goal. At this point the most the NCAA can say is that they need to deter accidental use. Given the two years of suspensions it would seem that even that justification has expired.

    • No, I think it’s a PR campaign intended to shame the NCAA into doing something.

      It’s not like that hasn’t worked lately.

      • ScooBoo

        I’m going with Derek. It’s risky, but the NCAA doesn’t like us much anyway. Where is The Wolf? We haven’t used him in a while.

      • Derek

        I’m not suggesting it would be on behalf of the university, I just wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the family has hired counsel and that’s why they allowed this to go public.

  4. Go Dawgs!

    I sympathize with Houston here and I, too, believe he should be allowed to play.

    However, if the intent of the rule is to ensure that no NCAA athlete steps onto a playing field with a banned performance enhancing substance in his system and Koulton Houston still has a banned performance enhancing substance in his system, then the letter of the law appears to be on the NCAA’s side here. Emmert’s “surprised” reaction was beyond ridiculous and douchey, but that’s just bureaucrat politispeak anyway. Unless the NCAA decides that it’s acceptable to have the amount of whatever-the-hell in your system that Houston has, then it appears that he’ll be sitting out.

    What the hell kind of PED stays in your system two and a half years? And I hope this doctor is getting some sort of bad day out of this whole affair.

    • HobnailedBoots

      The “intent of the rule” is to maintain competitive balance. What difference does it make if a “substance” tests positive in Kolton if it doesn’t give him a competitive edge? I think to say that the intent of the rule is to prevent anyone with a certain substance in their system from playing is disingenuous – that alone means nothing.

      • Cojones

        How can a PED NOT give a competitive edge? That’s what has to be proven. To what level of detection is the drug ineffective? With the answer to those two questions in hand, UGA could pursue the overturning of the decision. Unfortunately, by the time we get those answers through scientific experimentation, Kolton will be playing in his 9th Pro Bowl.

    • L

      I don’t think most people are arguing that the letter of the law’s not on Emmert’s side, but I know I am just outraged by the fact that the NCAA continuously does solve problems on an ad hoc basis but refuses to even consider or closely examine the facts here. Also, aspects other than the strict textual construction of a statute are routinely given credence in legal interpretation.

    • Ray

      Ok, maybe I can shed some light here. I won’t go too much nto detail because I don’t like typing on a phone. What does the “letter of the law” state according to the ncaa? I don’t know if they are testing urine or serum or if they are looking for residual steroid or the biomarker. Courson says a few nanograms but the devil is in what ng are compared to. If the cut off is 1000 ng/mL of urine and he is 1003 ng then it is statistically the same (95%+ confidence level). I have seen some thresholds set at an arbitrary number and others taken from a population mean. An aveage is derived from high and low numbers meaning some are jus naturally high. It also.depends on the tinstrument being used(sensitivity, ion suppression etc) can affect. It also depends on the method being used. Is the internal standard isotopically labeled or is it a surrogate. There also phenomena such as the native analyte response being enhanced while the internal standard is not. Although rare, you can also havefor hyogen exchange thatcontact can affectyou the outcome. Point being, there areis a lot of variables. I amto bout toThursday throw this effinga phone downto so thatI is allI for now….droid sux.d.

      • Dog in Fla

        A Chemist of the Verge of a Droid Breakdown

      • AusDawg85

        That’s Gold, Jerry! Gold!!!

        If that’s a fake post, it should win an award. Sadly, I think poor Ray is a really smart guy with a crappy phone and no patience.

        • Cosmic Dawg

          I started laughing so hard at these three posts that my wife came in to see what was so funny…I am nearly in tears. Ray is so about to effing Thursday his Droid…which is like code for what happened to C-3po when he got pulled apart in The Empire Strikes Back. I have wanted to effing Thursday my Droid phone, too.

          • Ray

            I’m about to go Walter White here….

          • AusDawg85

            “I am going to THURSDAY THROW this effing [...bad play, bad call, bad coaching, bad whatever...]” shall now be the rally cry I use all season. And no one will have a clue what I’m screaming except GTP readers. This is just awesome.

  5. The other Doug

    Isn’t there a known amount of time it takes “Norandrolone” to move through the system?

    • william

      Take this for what it’s worth it’s second hand I read it in an article yesterday . The statement said it lasted 18 to 24the months and could last longer considering it’s not water soluble and adheres to fat cells (o-line men not being on the thinner side should make it linger longer is my guess)

  6. charlottedawg

    Let’s be honest, if the NCAA could’ve benefited financially from ruling Houston eligible, the NCAA would’ve reinstated him under “mitigating or special circumstances”. The key phrase from the Ron Courson statement is that the NCAA only acts or gives a shit “when it serves their purposes and needs”.

    • Ubiquitous GA Alum

      the NCAA only acts or gives a shit “when it serves their purposes and needs”.

      Such as allowing 5 ineligible tOS players to participate in the Sugar Bowl if they promised to not go pro and take their punishment the next season.

  7. Dawg in Beaumont

    I completely see the inconsistency you are pointing out, Senator. But consider this devil’s advocate scenario:

    The NCAA allows KH to play due to what we all clearly see: He’s not taking performance enhancers. KH pancakes blocks a promising Defensive End and ends his career. Defensive End sues the NCAA for allowing someone to play with these elevated levels.

    Not saying it would be a worthy suit or a successful suit, just saying I could understand that fear of the NCAA. Again, it may be cowardice or lazy on their part, but I’m not saying I’d be more brave if I were in their shoes.

    • Maybe, but if the NCAA can stand the general threat of lawsuits about concussions, I don’t see where your example is any particularly big deal.

      • Mayor of Dawgtown

        We’re talking about an organization that “authorized” its President to by-pass the normal enforcement policy and invent punishment for Penn State using a vote of a combined committee and a board within the NCAA that doesn’t have the power to do that. The very By-law cited by the NCAA as support for that action on its face does not contain language allowing that Committee/board to do that. Such action, by the NCAA’s very Constitution, requires “Special Legislation” which would take a vote of all member institutions, which the NCAA didn’t do. Basically, the NCAA just blew that by everybody and has not even been called down for it. This is an organization that just does what its leaders want to do and makes sh!t up as it goes along. The NCAA leaders have no fear of lawsuits.

    • HobnailedBoots

      I very seriously doubt anybody at the NCAA has considered your scenario. If someone could have sued the NCAA over an injury, they would have done it by now.

      • Dawg in Beaumont

        Again, I’m not saying the suit would be worthy or successful, but I could see it happening. I’m sure there hasn’t been a suit like that before because I’m sure there hasn’t even been a situation like Kolton’s before.

  8. Scorpio Jones, III

    I agree, Senator, that at least on the surface it appears the NCAA can’t get out its own way. But…if the testing threshold is lowered, then what happens?

    If you agree that some sort of testing for PED’s is a good thing, and the NCAA are the only folks who can test for them in a unilateral way, there has to be some standard applied, and it has to be applied by the NCAA, because there is no third party.

    The argument that nobody in Houston’s family knew the drug was being administered makes me itch.

    The idea a doctor, working on a kid with NFL potential as an offensive lineman, would introduce an anabolic steroid into the kid’s system without anyone knowing it seems grounds for at least some questions.

    Houston’s father played college football, Houston played high school ball at one of the most advanced high school programs in the South, and no one knew Kolton was being injected with an anabolic steroid when it should have been widely known he would be tested before starting school at Georgia?

    I don’t know what this apparent, or claimed, lack of knowledge means…and maybe Houston and his family did know, but were told by the doctors the drug would be out of his system by the time he was tested…which is obviously incorrect.

    I certainly do not disagree that in this case, they got Penn State right, the NCAA’s rule seems arbitrarily rigid and does nothing to help the individual athlete…once again.

    But there do have to be standards and scientific thresholds. It seems to me the only option for Kolton lies in court…again.

    I guess what I am saying is that if you can be wrong one week, can you be right the next? Or the converse.

    • I’m not asking the NCAA to lower its standards. I’m asking it to use common sense.

      Houston has been banned from playing college football for two and a half years. That’s unprecedented. And it’s over something that occurred in high school, hasn’t been repeated in college and won’t affect his play. It’s all been documented scrupulously and scientifically. The NCAA knows all of this… and yawns.

      You tell me what’s the point to this.

      • Scorpio Jones, III

        It certainly seems they are out to lunch, history indicates the NCAA spends a lot of time being out of the office. Obviously no one seems to have a clue what the point is, including, apparently, the NCAA, which has already reversed itself on Houston once. If there is some larger issue in all this it completely escapes me.

        • gastr1

          The larger issue is that Emmert is making Senator Blutarsky’s case for him re: Penn State, the arbitrary nature of NCAA actions, and the kingmaking process (Emmert). Senator’s right here…the whole thing is bullshit. You either go by the spirit or the letter, but don’t fuck with us by doing both. And really…PLEASE do not insult us by being all butt-hurt for even asking when your track record is so completely all over the place.

          • And really…PLEASE do not insult us by being all butt-hurt for even asking when your track record is so completely all over the place.

            I think that’s what chaps my ass so much about this. Emmert effectively chastised McGarity for having the chutzpah to ask him to use common sense. I mean, come on dude, it’s not your like your organization is known for not allowing mitigating circumstances to circumvent your own bylaws and rules cough*CamNewtonAuburn*cough.

        • Scorpio Jones, III

          “That’s unprecedented.” Yer boy Mark seems fascinated with new precedent. Maybe he gets a bonus for the number of “unprecedented” decisions he talks about.

  9. Can we stop referring to the NCAA rulebook as law? It is not law. It is a set of guidelines that the Board of Trustees uses to make decisions about… fair play among its members(?). It is generally agreed upon by its member constituents, but it is by no means law. They disregard the law, they completely ignore precedent, and they make stuff up in a very reactionary way to address problems irrationally… okay, it sounds an awful lot like our congress, but it is still not law.

    • Scorpio Jones, III

      It may not , in the strictest sense, be law, but the effect of the NCAA’s rules is certainly law-like and the constant confusion about what to call NCAA rules is an indication of that.

      Would you prefer…”The NCAA rule, which although not a law, has the effect of a law when applied to athletics?”

      I understand that you are correct, but what are you gonna do?

      • I would actually prefer the truth:

        “The NCAA rule, which although not a law, has the effect of a law when applied to athletics at the whim of whomever is making the decision at the moment.” Or, we can call it “made-up, discriminately-applied bullshit.” It means the same.

        The less credibility we lend to that organization’s tenets, the sooner it will cease to exist.

  10. Connor

    The NCAA only has two standards: What is good for the bottom line and what is good for the image. The first will always supersede the second, but either will take precedent over any inconvenient rules or regulations. If Kolton’s story gets enough popular support, the NCAA will find a way to make him eligible. I think that’s the only reason UGA is making it public. If there was any precedent established by how PSU was handled it’s that Emmert and the NCAA run things much like Mayor Quimby of Springfield.
    “If that is the way the wind blows, let it not be said that I do not also blow.”

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      +1.

    • Dawgy45

      No doubt about it…Emmert blows.

    • Cojones

      Except the precedent to be set here is to allow a player with PED(s) in his system to play. What will the next positive-tested athlete’s school claim? The limit was arbitrarily set and arbitrarily moved? Then he would want his case arbitrarily adjudicated and push the limit higher(arbitrarily).

      While our angst is well-founded, science has to catch up to our arguments. If you can solve their predicament I think the NCAA would welcome it. Finding and setting the level to which each PED could be determined as ineffective is a long-term proposition. Right now the rule reads that they aren’t set, rather they are banned.

      The mere presence of an illegal PED is enough to ruin an athlete’s college career. They are used by doctors to promote healing; they are used by athletes to enhance player ability. Think Barry Bonds and Mcguire and home runs; think other baseball cheaters . Want to rethink their eligibility for the BBHOF?

      Doctors should get information right along with athletes when a “hard” steroid is needed. A list of system-persistent drugs and what they will do to the career of HS/College/Pro athletes should be made available to all doctors, schools and parents who oversee the health and welfare of these athletes. If absolutely needed for healing, permission to use should be afforded the doctor and the monitoring of the drug should ensue, including full disclosure of medical records where necessary to protect an athlete’s eligibility.

      • Except they are not testing for PEDs, they are testing for a very long lasting metabolite.
        A good analogy here is marijuana urine testing, which also tests for a fat soluble metabolite. The psychoactive THC molecule is long gone from your system by the time you fail that drug test and lose your job 45 days later. And no way to prove if you were ever “high” at work.
        If you want to test for PEDs then test for the actual PED molecule. The science is already there, we are just waiting for mid-level bullshit administrators to catch up!

        • Cojones

          Congress has set aside funds several times for over 30 yrs to test pot to determine it’s affect on society and the individual. There is a govt facility where pot has been grown and accumulated for experimentation for years in Mississippi. Congress won’t free the money to get it done, preferring to live in the darkness of ignorance on the subject simply because it is politicaly expedient to not shed light on “Devil Weed”.

  11. Macallanlover

    This is a borderline issue for me as I support adherence to drug testing guidelines, however there is a need for a modification in this unusual case. With the intent of the rule to stop/prevent usage of a substance, and to insure no competitive advantage, there is a middle ground that the NCAA should be urged to seek. If the NCAA admits there is no competitive advantage, the big issue is eliminated. All that is needed in the ruling is applying a statute of limitations where no additional use is following the initial suspension can be documented. In this case, the use of the steroid was for medical reasons, prescribed by a physician in a medical situation unrelated to athletics, and prior to the player even being subjected to the rule as he was in HS.

    The more outrageous result of this decision is that Houston could have been a lifetime doper, or had a cocaine habit after becoming an NCAA player and he would not be ineligible by the NCAA. Are you serious? I think Emmert and company need to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are on the right side here.

    • The irony here is that if Kolton had a cocaine habit, then he most definitely would have a better chance of playing. Cocaine metabolites are water soluble and completely flush from one’s body in ~ 3-5 days.

    • Cojones

      Don’t blame Emmert, Mac. Society has set these rules in sports and the workplace. Any pot smoker can tell you that the affects of THC wear off quickly and don’t cause overt changes to your character. But you will be tested by most employers for it’s presence because it is illegal in most places. The residual THC that remains in your system produces no change in work habits or reasoning ability in the workplace, but the mere presence of it being detected is enough for you to not get or lose a job.

      Permissable levels have never been advocated because many employers want you to have never contacted THC. Residual levels left in the blood of nonsmokers accidentally exposed to THC in a party environment can be detected the following day and cause loss of job even though you never got the benefit of a high and you don’t smoke. If you smell smoke, it’s already in your lungs and dissiminating through your body while you are trying to decide whether to flee or not. That would be a great time for you to try it with a brownie and enjoy it like you would a drink. Or flee a great party.

      Setting permissable levels in this society won’t happen until public knowledge of drugs is increased by scientific knowledge. So, how do you feel about approaching Congress to let that scientific money be implemented that has been allocated and in place for years for pot experimentation? The idea for that could have already helped Kolton Houston in this particular paradox.

      Of course, we could just continue beating up Emmert and the NCAA because it makes us feel better. Meanwhile, Kolton just wants to play football.

      • Exactly. Now you’re talking!

      • Macallanlover

        I want no part of the Federal Government setting any guidelines. I have seen first hand how corrupt the processes are when politicians, and those who report to them, can be manipulated to please special interest groups and voters. Science takes a back seat when that occurs. The NCAA doesn’t need Big Brother on this, common sense and a modification to insure we give players a chance to succeed while achieving the protections the rules were designed to achieve. If Houston has been clean for 2 and 1/2 years, he has served a sentence for obeying a doctor’s orders that is longer than many felons ever serve. And Emmert question’s that being a reasonable challenge? Academic types are the least impressive among us, they should all have to work a real job for a period of time before heading a university or department of a university.

  12. Can anyone point me to where the NCAA published the actual numerical threshold for this particular metabolite? If Emmert’s reference to an “appropriate threshold” is the way the rulebook actually reads, then his feigned flabbergastedness at our appeal rings all the more hollow. We’re going to keep asking until you tell us what we are shooting for. If, as I suspect, there is in fact no mention of this situation in the rulebook, then they are obviously just making this up as they go along, as they did with PSU. It’s total horseshit if he doesn’t get to play this year.

  13. Will Trane

    Where is Mike Slive and the SEC front office in this matter. A suit should originate from the SEC. A legal suit from the SEC would put more pressure on the NCAA rather than fomr a player & family or member program & university. A suit in court is the only solution.
    The NCAA thinks it is a NCAA issue. Move to another level, conference, because it could happen at Bama, LSU, and etc.

  14. David

    I want Kolston to play and I think it’s only fair that they should look into his case and make an exception. But I only feel that way because he’s a Dawg. If you look at this without red and black colored glasses I honestly see their point. The Tour de France or the Olympics wouldn’t allow him to compete. It wouldn’t matter the circumstances of the positive test. Anti-doping and PED rules are what they are.

    • Then why back off on the lifetime ban, rules being what they are and all that?

      • David

        Because they agree that he hasn’t taken anything in 2 1/2 years. Typically the lifetime ban due to 2 positive tests is due to the athlete continuing to take steroids after being caught the first time. In Kolston’s case they agree he’s not continuing to break any rules by doping. So they’ve made the exception which allows him to come back as long as the levels of the steroid in his system drop to below threshold levels. Which again is a fair ruling.

        • So exactly what is the NCAA’s point that you see?

          If the issue is to prohibit Houston from playing because steroid use gives him a competitive advantage, there’s no difference between lifting the lifetime ban and lifting the immediate one. In both cases, the relevant facts are the same.

          • David

            They’re not suspending him because steroids are giving him a competitive advantage. I don’t think the NCAA has ever argued that. They’re suspending him because he currently has levels of a steroid in his system that are above levels that some doctor told the NCAA are recommended threshold levels. Emmert has no reason to question his own medical and chemistry data. He’s looking at this as Kolston Houston tested positive TODAY on a steroid test so he can’t play. They’ve made the exception that once his levels are below the threshold he can play. But until then, no.

            If player X from Ohio State tested positive today for the same steroid at Houston’s current level, would you say nevermind and make an exception?

            • You’re running around in circles logically. If the standard is simply “They’re suspending him because he currently has levels of a steroid in his system that are above levels that some doctor told the NCAA are recommended threshold levels”, then there’s no justification for lifting the lifetime ban. He’s flunked two tests. End of story.

              In other words, the NCAA has already made the exception. That’s why your OSU hypothetical isn’t applicable.

              • David

                I agree the OSU hypothetical contradicts. But, at the end of the day I look at it like this. I know the NCAA isn’t the Olympic committee. Otherwise like you said, its two failed test and he’s done for life. I’m glad they’ve gone so far as to make the exception that they have. For Kolston’s sake, I agree its only fair he should be given a further exception. But the NCAA for all its flaws is trying to withold a testing standard and avoid opening loopholes. (which as I write that I can’t help cringe.)

                • I think we’re saying the same thing here. It’s more about the NCAA trying to justify its own standard than it is about the competitive advantage issue. Which is bass-ackwards, but none too surprising considering the source.

    • stoopnagle

      UCI and IOC operate exactly like the NCAA (only worse). Don’t cite them as some standard. Believe me, as a cycling AND CFB fan, the NCAA are amateurs compared to UCI.

    • RocketDawg

      Actually if he tested positive for PED’s at the Tour or in the Olympics he would receive a 2 year ban so in this case he would have served his band and be eligible to play.

  15. Bevo

    Senator B – thanks for an excellent blog post on an important issue.

    • Scorpio Jones, III

      Yep…any argumentation that talks about the NCAA…for or against…puts the pressure on to raise performance by that august body to unprecedented levels….

      When the revolution comes, Mark………

  16. Comin' Down The Track

    What do you want? Cam was suspended for almost a whole day, duh.

    Seems legit.

    • David

      Exactly! Perhaps they should ban Kolston Houston’s dad for taking him to the shady steroid dealing doctor. Kolston didn’t know anything!

  17. Scorpio Jones, III

    It is interesting, somehow, that many of the responders to the Senator’s original post don’t even know how to spell Kolton Houston. But they can spell Mark Emmert and NCAA…obviously the NCAA lit up the scoreboard last week.

    • Cojones

      Sometimes we know but make mistakes when typing possessives. I’ve learned on this blog to be pretty forgiving of such errors because I commit them when in a rush to reply. If you want to determine if I’ve erred, just read my other blogs. That usually helps me overlook another’s faux pas.

      • Scorpio Jones, III

        Of course, Cojones, but jeez, you could at least find out the kid’s real name if yer gonna talk about him.

  18. L

    “Unfortunately, the NCAA can’t make an exception for Houston. He’s already escaped a lifetime ban after his second positive test, and while you have to feel for Houston, making an exception for him would open up a new can of worms for the NCAA. ” Ironclad logic there. The NCAA already made one exception so they CAN’T do it again, for serious yall.

    • RocketDawg

      Bottom line is he either failed two tests and is banned for life or he should be able to suit up on Opening Day and play. There really is no gray area in this one.

  19. Macallanlover

    Is that like being so far out of bounds that you now back in bounds? I like it, ” now son, you had the death penalty, but since we forgave you for that, we have no other authorized punishment from the court so you are now free to go.” I like it, and Houston deserves a break like that, imo.

  20. UGARUGBY79

    I agree with Will Trane–something from the sec office would have to be dealt with–where the heck is President Adams–if he ever wanted to go out on a better note ! what an opportunity is in front of him !! somebody call Billy Payne–bet he could make something happen!!