Don’t bogart that drug penalty, my friend.

When I hear a coach say something like, “My deal is the welfare of the student athlete and what best helps that”, my initial tendency is to wince, but Lincoln Riley’s comments about the NCAA’s stance on marijuana make me wonder if that’s the next big frontier the organization is forced to confront.

When asked about if he anticipated the NCAA enacting looser marijuana rules similar to the MLB and NHL, Riley said he sees it in the future, but is unclear as to when it would happen.

Marijuana is now legal medically in 33 states, including Oklahoma, but Riley said players with medical cards are not exempt from marijuana tests.

Testing positive for weed means a half-season suspension under current NCAA guidelines, something that’s bound to be tested as society continues to move closer to de-criminalization or outright legalization.  It’s a stance that’s hard to justify, considering that marijuana isn’t performance enhancing.



Filed under Crime and Punishment, The NCAA

22 responses to “Don’t bogart that drug penalty, my friend.

  1. Seems like we hear every season of players getting caught with weed. I don’t recall any of them missing 50% of a season. Typically it’s handled internally? When does the NCAA demand a drug test or is this a stick they keep in the corner to threaten wayward programs?
    But I have to ask, with the Georgia way being what it is, could the muffed fair catches and dropped passes be the result of untreated glaucoma?

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Dawg abides

      The way I understand it, schools have to maintain their own drug testing program to the satisfaction of the NCAA. If the schools don’t test, then the NCAA does it for them. The crazy part is, schools get to set their own punishment policies for failed tests, but if the NCAA has to test and players fail it’s a half season suspension.
      The easiest and most logical thing to do is for the NCAA to drop their policy on testing for non-PEDs and leave testing for illegal substances up to the individual schools. Most schools would drop marijuana testing quickly just for recruiting purposes.


  2. Macallanlover

    NCAA needs to get out of this area and let teams determine the punishment of marijuana usage. Not performance enhancing, and laws vary widely in states. And, LOL Cowdog; any chance of it helping cataracts so I could get an exemption?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Rival

    Looking forward to the Dank Den in premium seating areas at Sanford Stadium after my generous Magill Society contribution. You plebes can still enjoy your dirt weed at the intramural field parking lot before heading to the stadium.


  4. TN Dawg

    Something doesn’t have to be performance enhancing to be banned from the sport.

    I imagine that you really wouldn’t want players drunk or stoned or tripping on LSD or shrooms on the field of play given the increased likelihood of injury.


  5. stoopnagle

    Although, there is some evidence of performance enhancing effects with regard to recovery. You can google them — there’s an ultra runner who famously uses edibles as part of his recovery routine (Avery Collins).



    Isn’t the legal age in those 33 states for Mary Jane 21? That eliminates a good many college football players from obtaining it legally.

    Now me, I think it should be legal for all at 18..period. It should be up to the schools or conferences how they want to test for it and enforce.


  7. MGW

    “Testing positive for weed means a half-season suspension under current NCAA guidelines…”

    Any coach who just read this is belly laughing and slapping his knee right now. Probably just pissed his pants he’s laughing so hard.