Drug policy and The Oklahoma State Way

The NCAA just put the hammer down on Oklahoma State for its repeated violations of its own drug policy.

Just kidding, at least to the first part of that sentence.

In addition to a reduction in recruiting evaluation days for football coaches and number of allowed official visits, both of which were self-imposed penalties, the NCAA put Oklahoma State on probation until April 23, 2016, levied an $8,500 fine and suspended the Orange Pride program for four years.

Orange Pride, in case you were wondering, is an all-female hosting group that “…did not follow NCAA guidelines in its recruitment of prospects.”  (I’ll leave that for you to ponder.)

But with regard to the latter, the NCAA found five football players between 2008-2012 who should have been withheld from a total of seven games based on the school’s testing policy.  And that’s supposedly a pretty big deal, because the NCAA’s only involvement in the drug area is a rule stating that schools must follow their own policies.  Which OSU clearly didn’t.

The topper is the school’s defense here:

According to the final public report, Oklahoma State athletics director Mike Holder told the infractions committee he believed he had “latitude” to make exceptions to Oklahoma State’s policy and did so after consulting with football coach Mike Gundy on the individual cases. He admitted during the hearing he was mistaken in that view and that he should have abided by the “letter of the law.”

… (Oklahoma State president Burns) Hargis said the instances where the drug testing policy wasn’t followed were the result of Gundy “trying to do what was best for the student-athlete.”

So even with a program (allegedly) enforcing a drug policy weaker than Georgia’s, the school still felt the need on an institutional basis to ignore it whenever the head coach thought it was inconvenient and all NCAA enforcement can come up in response with is a fine and a restriction on a few official recruiting visits.

We are such chumps.

50 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, The NCAA

50 responses to “Drug policy and The Oklahoma State Way

  1. DawgPhan

    The Georgia Way.

    Like

  2. PansyTheDawg

    Sounds like OSU are the chumps. Simply because UGA participates in football doesn’t mean it should abandon all of its integrity and be scum like most the rest of the perverted college football industry. The more I learn about college football, the more I become an NFL fan. They may be just as morally bankrupt, but at least none of those teams are part of universities.

    Like

    • Connor

      But UGA does participate in football, at a high level, so its probably not squeaky clean anyway. I feel like giving the Malone speech from Untouchables about the “Chicago way”… Unfortunately UGA is probably not going to have the success we as fans want as long as it keeps bringing knives to gunfights.

      Like

      • Bulldawg165

        “But UGA does participate in football, at a high level, so its probably not squeaky clean anyway.”

        Agreed. It amazes me that people around here will get on such a moral high horse for a school not suspending an athlete for smoking a plant that they probably want legalized anyway.

        Like

    • Joe Schmoe

      We are the chumps because we continue to allow ourselves to be evicerated in the media over players suspensions while schools like ok state do shit like this. Our PR department should all be fired.

      Like

    • Bulldawg165

      Pansy, you don’t really think OSU is scum because they allowed young men to play football after finding out they took a midnight toke, do you?

      Like

      • Ponyboy

        She just might. And there is nothing wrong her feeling that way. I totally agree with you on the weed issue, but some people just feel differently. This doesn’t put them on this large, mythical ” horse ” you keep beating into the ground. Even with my severe lack of reading comprehension skills, I believe she is calling them scum because of the joke of an effort to enforce their own drug policy, and then the AD and president using some BS excuse. Not because of your Aunt Sally argument of players taking a toke. Personally, short of sweeping marijuana law reform on a federal level, I would like to see UGA bring their policy in line with most programs, and the NCAA to bring the ppm thresholds to Olympic levels.

        Like

        • PansyTheDawg

          What this guy said, except this Pansy is a man. I’m not a fan of UGA’s drug policy, and my outrage has nothing to do with the player or what they did but with how OSU handled it in a dishonest and underhanded fashion. I used such strong language because I was troubled at the realization or acceptance that our beloved football team could lead to our glorious university losing some integrity.

          Like

          • Bulldawg165

            Integrity? If I had to choose which was worse between coaches and administrators making millions by screwing over young men versus looking the other way when a kid smokes weed, I’m choosing the former. (And yes, despite what a college president, coach, or AD says publicly they all clearly support shafting players via borderline illegal price controls– they control the NCAA and Emmert, after all)

            Like

            • PansyTheDawg

              I don’t disagree that the NCAA and universities use players to make money or that it is a terrible thing. You’re kidding yourself if you think that OSU looked the other way to do the kid some sort of favor, which it’s kind of beginning to seem like that’s your implication. OSU looked the other way for their own asses. As far as I can tell, that’s the exact same behavior that leads to the exploitation of football players. In my opinion, if you have a problem with the way universities treat football players then you should also have a problem, as I do, with the way OSU handled the football player because it’s indicative of the same kind of behavior.

              Like

              • Bulldawg165

                I don’t think they looked the other way specifically for the kid, no. I’m not that naive. Them looking the other way did, in fact, benefit the kid though.

                Like

        • Bulldawg165

          Pony, it’s funny how you try accuse me of being distasteful while littering your post with condescending remarks. It doesn’t hurt my feelings or anything, but it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

          Like

    • Bulldog Joe

      Georgia’s first-time drug policy suspended two starters for the OSU game in Stillwater while OSU lied about Dez Bryant’s eligibility.

      Dez Bryant won the game late for OSU.

      The chumps wear red and black.

      Like

      • Uglydawg

        I’d rather do right and lose than do wrong and win. OStO is not to be admired for that incident or game. Georgia is.

        Like

        • Uglydawg

          Suppose we found out the refs solicited money from Ost and UGA before the game…..for the “Ref’s Foundation” (or something like it). Suppose Ost paid up and UGA didn’t. Ost wins the game. Who would be the chumps, Bulldog Joe? Is it a matter of right and wrong or not?

          Like

    • Derek

      I’m with you on all but the giving up part. Not ready for that yet.

      I don’t have a problem with our policies on players whether it be discipline or drugs. I think they are good both for the players and for the university. If we lose a few games on the way by trying to do things the right way, well that’s life. Cutting corners and cheating can go a long way, but the rewards aren’t particular rewarding. In short, just because the people that win are scum doesn’t mean I want to jump in the same pool with them. Hell, I’d rather be more like Vandy than Auburn. I’d rather be more like Stanford than Alabama. I’d rather be more like an Ivy League school than FSU. Winning is great, but it isn’t the only thing or even the #1 thing. It’s either the product of doing things the right way or its worthless.

      And I’m not talking about “benefits.” If we are giving players (or knowingly allowing players to receive) money, cars whatever, that doesn’t bother me as much as:

      1) pimping out young women for prospective player’s amusement
      2) cutting players who can’t contribute
      3) cutting players who have injury issues that may resolve
      4) not giving a damn if the kid can read
      5) leaving a psychopath on campus and in the community because he can ball
      6) tolerating criminal behavior because he can play
      would bother me.

      I could go on but the point is that our players should be getting an education, respecting the opportunity they have and being ambassadors for the university. When these guys put on that uniform they represent all of us. They should be expected to wear it well or they can hit the bricks. If you’ve decided you’d rather be an embarrassment to all of us than a UGA football player then you need to be at Auburn or Alabama or FSU.

      Like

      • Bulldawg165

        I agree except #’s 2 and 3. Even middle school and high school teams cut players when they aren’t good enough. As long as we are upfront about the possibility and still arrange for them to have a scholarship (that doesn’t count against our 85) then I don’t care.

        Like

        • Derek

          We’ve had some guys that worked their asses to get back and couldn’t but we helped them and we’ve also had some just duds. (I’m talking to you Long bros.!) You take the risk when you committed to them and their parents. The idea that we should have cut a kid like Albert Hollis because the chances of him playing again were minimal just strikes me as wrong. If the kid is still trying, stick with him. If a kid gets a knee and won’t rehab and just wants to sit on his ass and eat Little Debbies, then ok. If a kid tries and shows up but just ain’t good enough then that’s on the coach who offered him. Otherwise where do you draw the line? You could literally start cutting late round draft picks to make room for first rounders if you had a good enough roster. That’s not right in my book.

          Like

          • HirsuitDawg

            Cough, Alabama, cough!

            Like

          • JCDAWG83

            I agree, but once the players start getting paid more than a scholarship, they are employees and either need to produce or be replaced by someone who can produce. These young guys think getting a cut of the money is great. Wait until they are actually having to earn the ability to keep their spot on the team.

            Like

            • pete

              OK 83. I respond when I disagree with you so to be fair, I should speak up when I agree. You made a great point here.

              I wonder if it would be a good idea to just let the kids good enough market themselves. If they make some $ for their efforts, great. It could count as credit toward an economics class too. 🙂

              Like

          • Bulldawg165

            “You could literally start cutting late round draft picks to make room for first rounders if you had a good enough roster. That’s not right in my book.”

            Are you implying that it’s a real possibility that a kid could be a future NFL’ER but still be the 86th best player on a college football team? If so, I’m not buying it. Not even Bama cuts future NFL’ers.

            Even if it did happen, that person would be overflowing with other scholarship offers.

            Like

            • Derek

              Not the point. The point is that “good enough for your scholly to renew” is different at every place in the country. If bama signs a kid that can’t play the school should remain committed to the player.
              They don’t let kids leave cause the coach can’t win a title do they? The coach said he could when the kid signed. Why can’t the kid say, “hey I wanted a title, can’t win one here so I’m leaving and going over there?”

              Like

              • Bulldawg165

                “If bama signs a kid that can’t play the school should remain committed to the player”

                I already said I’m only ok with it if they still find a way for the student to remain on scholarship so I’m not really sure how you’re disagreeing with me. I agree that the kid shouldn’t be removed from scholarship (just gotta find a way for him to not count toward the 85), but how does it benefit anyone, including the kid, to keep him on the team and make him spend all that time working out and practicing when there’s no chance he sees the field?

                Like

                • What’s the pont of doing all that work without any hope for a title? I think we leave the concept of “futility” up to the kid and not the coach in this instance. Medical redshirts have a place but they’ve been abused by bama. There was a kid given an MR at bama in the spring that was playing for Jax state that summer. It was just a way to cut someone. We could but don’t do that and I like that we don’t.

                  Like

                • Bulldawg165

                  “What’s the pont of doing all that work without any hope for a title?”

                  Not even close to the same thing, considering only 1 out of 120+ schools wins a title every year but probably 90+% of the football team will see the field for at least a few plays over the course of the season.

                  Although, to be honest, I wouldn’t care if a student chose to transfer for any reason. Regular students do it all of the time. I think the restrictions on student-athletes should be removed.

                  Like

                • Bulldawg165

                  By the way, you didn’t tell me how it benefits a kid to keep him on the team once the coaches have decided that he isn’t good enough to ever see the field.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  First, transferring at will is unrealistic and will never happen. Saying you are for a fantasy in order to claim logical consistency in promoting a practice that does actually occur isn’t presenting a very persuasive argument.

                  Second, there have been times where coaches change and gets get a new chance. Sometimes a kid is a turd for a year or two then they turn it around. Coaches have enough power as it is. Sign a kid. You keep him. The kid is bound to the coach and to the school. It should be mutual. Why shouldn’t the kid decide when he’s done? He’s signed his life away for the scholly. If he wants to keep playing, the let him stay.

                  Like

                • Bulldawg165

                  “First, transferring at will is unrealistic and will never happen”

                  It’s more realistic than a future NFL’er being the 86th best player on the team 😉

                  It just seems silly to me that you want to make a kid waste all that time in order to keep his scholarship as opposed to letting him off the hook after he’s tried his best and couldn’t make it.

                  Like

  3. Cousin Eddie

    “trying to do what’s best for the student athlete,” how is not moving forward with agreed upon and know punishment not what is best? Let me guess Gundy said don’t make me count to three and stopped counting after two and 7/8s. Teaching a great lesson there Coach, but wait is that what being a “man” allows you to do?

    Like

  4. Does the NCAA require universities to have a drug policy at all?

    As someone who generally favors the decriminalization of drugs across the board, I say Georgia should let ’em do whatever they want. As long as it doesn’t affect their performance on the field, no reason they shouldn’t have the latitude to do just as many drugs as I did when I was in school (or as students are no doubt doing today).

    Like

    • If a school doesn’t have a drug policy, then its program automatically defaults to the NCAA’s, which is quite strict. And that’s why every school has a drug policy. 🙂

      Like

      • Yeah, isn’t the default NCAA policy a one year suspension for the first positive test for weed? That is why UF has a policy at all about weed.

        Like

      • Macallanlover

        Senator, what is the prevailing authority for the NCAA rule in states where MJ is legal (CO and Washington)? Can you have an NCAA drug policy that punishes a legal activity as set by the citizens of that state? If so, can they make alcohol illegal for all athletes regardless of age? Also, it seems I heard a couple that Oregon did not test for marijuana, even though Oregon is not (yet) a state where it has been legalized but,as with some other states, it has a “relaxed” law regarding MJ use.

        Like

        • PTC DAWG

          Weed may be legal for kids over 21, that said, schools employers etc can have whatever policy they want

          Like

        • Not Senator and you did not ask me, but I will respond.
          1. A voluntary association may require members to refrain from otherwise legal activity. For example, a Christian church may have rules against members practicing Judaism .
          2. Yes.
          3. Yes.
          4. I do not know your assertion as to UO is accurate.

          Like

  5. Macallanlover

    No surprise that another coach/AD is caught fudging their own rules, it happens more often than not from what I have seen. Fulmer, Meyer, and Spurrier come to mind as the worst in the SEC at playing loose with their rules to the point they were jokes.

    As to the continual, and pathetic, “moral high horse” crowd that exists here, there is no highs or lows, morals, ethics, standards, and integrity is not measured in “high or low”, you either have it/them, or you don’t. Like degrees of pregnancy to me. If you attack those who do adhere to principles in their lives you should look in the mirror and admit you have fallen off somewhere. It has become the new “culture” to attack those who adhere to values once cherished; tough for you if you fall into that pack, suck it. You won’t drag down highly ethical people with your empty shots, you are just to be pitied. Get off my lawn!

    Like

    • Uglydawg

      When the slightest mistep by a good and responsible person is pointed to and used as an excuse for the sorry and irresponsible to ignore moral boundries, we call the former a chump.
      Derek got this one right.

      Like

    • Bulldawg165

      I thought you weren’t passive aggressive, Mac?

      Anyway, are you seriously implying that it’s immoral to not punish a kid for using a substance that is far, FAR less harmful and dangerous than the substance in your very own name?

      How old are you? I’m not trying to be rude here, but the whole “people who do weed are losers but I love my booze” shtick is normally taken on by senior citizens who are stuck in another timeframe and who refuse to accept basic facts.

      Like

      • Macallanlover

        I have stated repeatedly that I favor the legalization of marijuana, and feel until then it should be treated as a parking ticket type violation. I have also said I have issues with the drinking laws in the US, and feel the DUI offense should be weighted to the blood alcohol level. But that is a societal issue, obeying rules and not setting/adhering to standards is the discussion here. You don’t trade your integrity for 20 pieces of silver, or 2-3 wins.

        Like

        • If you believe possession of marijuana should be legal why would it be punished by a citation ?

          Like

          • Macallanlover

            Note the “until then” portion of that statement. Still prefer legalization but we should assign it lesser value from devastating drugs, like heroin, meth, and cocaine, imo.

            Like

            • Cojones

              Amen, Mac, and I’m in full agreement with you. At this point I would usually post “I’ll smoke to that!”, but don’t want the agreement to sound sarcastic.

              Like

  6. Russ

    Well, if the players are playing in football games on national TV, they can’t be out scoring drugs, so….yeah.

    Like

  7. I guess UGA could change its policy to allow exceptions to game suspensions and be in compliance with the NCAA requirement.

    Like

  8. ZeroPointZero

    Frankly our drug policy is a lose lose. Clearly a lot of UGA players smoke weed. Some get busted. God only knows how many time it right and don’t get caught. I’d guess we’re no better or worse than any other school out there. I say lose lose because the players that get caught look bad, UGA looks bad and to top it off the guys that get drafted probably fall a few spots with a known drug suspension on their record. Not to mention lost endorsement deals, etc. We know our policy is stricter than the vast majority of schools out there. The WWL, Herby, and the ole ball sack know this too, but they choose to ignore it for one reason or another. So to sum it up, the policy doesn’t stop players from smoking, it makes UGA look like a dirty program, it costs players money down the road, it publicly embarrasses the players, fans and school, and it causes us to lose a game here and there which costs us money and the chance for greater things on the field. I don’t really care what our policy is. I just want a level playing field for all involved.

    Like