So, we have some dudes that are suspended. That isn't extraordinary. That it is three running backs is. That is also life, except when it isn't life at nearly half of schools in DI (h/t Blutarsky). That number includes at least 10 other members of the SEC (including Texas A&M) and Georgia Tech. In case it gets posted to the SEC website again today, Mizzu also doesn't penalize for the first test.
I honestly have no idea if the test results were known before the Florida game. It is hard for me to believe they were considering the line Coach Richt has consistently taken on player suspensions. It is a disingenuous, at best, for any fan of any school that has a more lax policy to be outraged at any actions of a school that has a tougher policy. There is no moral high ground when you are not on moral high ground. Furthermore, if failed drug tests are what led to the suspensions, it also illustrates the lengths Georgia drug testing policy goes to, testing at least three of the four scholarship RBs in a RB focused offense. Of course, all of this is circumstantial, and therefore based on my suppositions.
Finally, I admit I am a Georgia homer. Hell, the name of the blog should indicate that. I also can admit when I am wrong. It would, frankly, shock me if I am. I wish others, especially those that write for less subjective outlets, would be, you know, less subjective.
TD
=========
For Further Reading:
-Bradley: I trust Richt and McGarity. (AJC)
-Weiszer: Richt Defends His Integrity (ABH)
Georgia Sports Blog FanShop
- Georgia Bulldogs Women's Sideline Clutch
- Price: $84.99
10 comments:
FWIW, we've heard it actually wasn't for drugs. This is counter to common sense (and almost every published report), but we'll never know for sure. I suspect what is being published (based on the scuttlebutt I've heard regarding those three and one other non-RB), but I really don't agree with throwing something out there about those guys without something a little more concrete than "a source close to the situation", especially when it is something that will implicate drug usage or the like.
That being said, it really doesn't matter what they're suspended for, being boneheaded enough to get suspended is enough for me. Frankly, it's just not looking good for their future prospects at hanging around at this juncture.
I am also a homer, but I will confidently say that Coach Richt has at least earned the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Also, McGarity has vehemently denied this as a timing issue. I don't think there's much else that can be said at this point without having solid proof. I am inclined to believe our administration until proven wrong.
MVD, PWD and I entertained the notion that the three of them got caught drinking (or doing other activities that don't require a test, but are 'not the Georgia way'). Carlton is 22, Boo is 20, Crowell is 18.
I guess Carlton could have bought the booze?
What makes me think it might not be is Carlton's suspension to start the season. If this were his second, he'd be done for the season.
As for the synthetic pot thing? I'd just love to hear Tug McGraw's take on it.
I believe the AD and Coaching staff knew last week that Crowell would be suspended. There were too many rumors about this exact scenario for them to have not known.
I'm not saying it's drugs. I'm just saying they knew.
HOWEVER...if I were the AD and my star RB failed a drug test the week before the UF game, I would DEFINITELY send the results to another lab for a second opinion.
I would furthermore send those results to a lab on the other side of the country using a shipping method that would ensure I didn't get the results back before Saturday, Oct. 29th.
That's the responsible thing to do. You wouldn't want to suspend such a high profile player without a second opinion. ;-)
Especially when the school you are playing doesn't suspend on the first offense.
Who cares? Lots of college kids drink and smoke weed and do a hell of a lot worse things.
OMG! Football players got in trouble! No!
Are they dumbasses? Absolutely. Were you a dumbass when you were 20? Probably - at least to some degree. Am I pissed at them. Oh yeah.
BUT...I've said it before and I'll say it again, this would not have been an issue years ago. My old man got caught drinking all night in New Orleans when the Dawgs played Tulane in basketball in the mid-60's - and that wasn't his only "violation" during his years in Athens, I can assure you of that. It led to him running stairs until he vomited every morning for a week, and then runnning some more. Somebody enlighten me as to how it would have helped him or the team for him to have been suspended for games or for him to be kicked off the team? Short answer, it wouldn't have.
Mark my words: nerd blogger / investigators / conspiracy-theorists and the hyper-technical rule nazis can and will ruin college sports if we let them.
Don't play into it people. Georgia should have the most lax rules it can get away with. We are not better for being more strict. We just have more suspended players.
PWD - are you sufficiently fired up to start blogging again? Looks like it.
I agree 100% TD. You make some great points.
The double standards in college sports are staggering. A perfect example is Auburn and LSU taking ZERO criticism for bringing Newton and Mettenberger into their programs.
You know it is interesting to reflect on how “convenient” the time was for the 3 key LSU players to be suspended , on their 2ND positive test for 1 game, and so many people are concerned about our kids 1st positive test being a “convenient” time. Make the rules the same for everyone and make the procedures the same and then lets’ talk. There are probably tests going on every week that we don’t know about and last week that number came up. I run a busines that does screen for specific situations. We can get a tentative positive right away, but we cannot suspend and fire until we get a confirmed postive, usually 3-5 days later!
Aladawg
Hank, stay on PWD. He'll get back in the game.
Because a first time offense has the consequence of missing at least 1 game, the media finds out.
How many of our 1st time offenders would have made the news if we weren't required to sit them for games? Because we do, the perception is we have more issues than other schools, when that isn't the case at all.
How many failed drug tests are there for the LSUs, Floridas, Tennessees, Bamas that never see the light of day because they don't have to suspend said player?
A LOT.
Post a Comment