Clemson? Pretty sure they did. Swinney probably not
by DakotaDomer (2018-12-28 13:09:26)

In reply to: I doubt very much Clemson had anything to do with it.  posted by Papa November


One sixth of their tested players with very little mutual connection tested positive for the same banned substance.

I’d imagine Clemson’s training, weight lifting, or medical staff were the point of crossover and not some shady supplement salesperson who managed to infiltrate the Clemson football team without the coaches ever knowing.


Not calling you out here but
by Catdog2  (2018-12-29 01:16:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

just imagine if something similar happened at ND.

Would people say BK probably didn't know? Sounds awfully similar to a situation a couple years ago regarding academic ineligibility to me with a very different public prosecution...


People here were outraged by "Zero. None. Absolutely none."
by IrishJosh24  (2018-12-29 09:18:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

At least initially. It was widely discussed, and I don't remember anyone defending it as the truth or remotely acceptable. I remember it being described, by those few who defended it, as a necessary legal strategy to advance the University's BS appeal.

Of course, almost everyone seems to have moved on, accepted it, or at least gotten "used to it." It still stands uncorrected as far as I know. Mr. Swarbrick, who has been so eager to be front and center in every article and TV camera angle, has never mentioned it. In fact, he disappeared off the face of the Earth for several months right about the same time. He told us all how 2012 bought us the time to do it right, knowing about the NCAA issues and what was coming, and then he left that whopper completely alone.

But folks mostly stopped caring about these things a while ago.


Pretty sure the quote was said by Kelly, not Swarbrick
by Catdog2  (2018-12-29 11:56:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I just find it ironic that people seem to argue that Kelly should have known about the academic transgressions of players but are also willing to give Dabo a pass at knowing what supplements players are taking.

Both seem similar to me in that they are tangential to the actual job of a football coach and it’s probably more likely for a coach to “know” about supplements than academics.

I also think if a reporter asked Dabo if he was “culpable” for any of the failed drug tests and what responsibility he bears, he would give a similar answer to “zero”, and I think that’s pretty reasonable. Think Saban, or Meyer, or Riley, or any coach would take blame for players cheating on papers and tests? Lol.


I'm aware it was Kelly.
by IrishJosh24  (2018-12-29 19:11:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Which is why I said Swarbrick had never even mentioned it. Yet he'll prance in front of the camera at the end of every win and wanted to have 100 interviews after the season.

Kelly should have known. Dabo probably should have as well. I don't give a shit what other coaches might say. What Kelly said back then was, and remains, wrong.


How are you "pretty sure?"
by Papa November  (2018-12-28 14:12:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The far most likely scenario is that one of these guys caught wind of either this particular compound or of the presence of research chemical sites in general. He showed it to another lineman or two, they read about it on a variety of forums, saw that it can promote muscle and strength gains despite not being a steroid, couldn't believe you could just order this stuff and have it delivered to your door, and did exactly that without bothering to check if it was a banned substance. Maybe the word spread among the linemen, and a few other guys decided to get in on it.

I would not be surprised if the three linemen who tested positive were the only linemen tested. If the rest of the linemen were follow-up tested, I would not be surprised to see most of them test positive.

Athletic trainers work 12-16 hour days taping ankles, coordinating rehab, ensuring the needs of the players are met during practices, etc. They do not have the time or expertise to keep up to speed on research chemicals. Maybe a strength coach would. But I've known some meat head strength coaches in my day, and not one of them would have been stupid enough to be involved in handing banned substances to players. Same for the medical staff.


I would guess the most likely scenario
by Catdog2  (2018-12-29 01:20:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

is that the players were all taking some protein or substance that was manufactured at the same facility as the banned substance, and which received some cross contamination.


If anything I question "Swinney probably not" *
by Tubes  (2018-12-28 20:59:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Sounds about right to me. *
by beattherush  (2018-12-28 17:27:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


So the defense is “established ignorance”
by DakotaDomer  (2018-12-28 15:02:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In your scenario where all these people are too dumb to know better...if they handed the supplement to the players does that count as someone at Clemson knowing? Or can only the players be held accountable for putting shady shit into their body?


I've lost track of what you're talking about.
by Papa November  (2018-12-28 17:45:26)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

You're saying you're "sure" that someone at Clemson in a position of authority is responsible for giving this stuff to players, or at least knowing what was going on.

I'm suggesting that is almost certainly not the case, that rather it was exclusively players acting on their own.

I'm not sure what "defense" you're referring to.


How did it go from pretty sure to sure?
by DakotaDomer  (2018-12-28 18:35:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

But you’re almost certain apparently so that’s nice


How many were tested? *
by G.K.Chesterton  (2018-12-28 13:39:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post