Junior wrote:i'm still blown away with the "at TCU, the penaly for the first offense should be as severe as that for the second, third or fourth at other colleges"' argument.
Pachall failed one test. yes, he's stupid for doing all the other stuff he admitted to, but he still failed one drug test (as far as we know and are led to believe). why should GP go against the school's own policy and bring down more than the policy that was approved by the school's board? ridiculous argument. yes, i'd love to see him suspended for the sheer fact that i can't stand TCU, but GP has no basis for doing so.
It wasn't Pachall's first offense. It was first, second, and third.
#1 - using weed (confirmed by failing drug test) #2 - using cocaine (confirmed by player's admission to police) #3 - using ecstasy (confirmed by player's admission to police)
Junior wrote:i'm still blown away with the "at TCU, the penaly for the first offense should be as severe as that for the second, third or fourth at other colleges"' argument.
Pachall failed one test. yes, he's stupid for doing all the other stuff he admitted to, but he still failed one drug test (as far as we know and are led to believe). why should GP go against the school's own policy and bring down more than the policy that was approved by the school's board? ridiculous argument. yes, i'd love to see him suspended for the sheer fact that i can't stand TCU, but GP has no basis for doing so.
It wasn't Pachall's first offense. It was first, second, and third.
#1 - using weed (confirmed by failing drug test) #2 - using cocaine (confirmed by player's admission to police) #3 - using ecstasy (confirmed by player's admission to police)
So punish him for being honest about the past? Would you rather he lied about it?
Junior wrote:i'm still blown away with the "at TCU, the penaly for the first offense should be as severe as that for the second, third or fourth at other colleges"' argument.
Pachall failed one test. yes, he's stupid for doing all the other stuff he admitted to, but he still failed one drug test (as far as we know and are led to believe). why should GP go against the school's own policy and bring down more than the policy that was approved by the school's board? ridiculous argument. yes, i'd love to see him suspended for the sheer fact that i can't stand TCU, but GP has no basis for doing so.
I don't think that's the point. Universities have policy's designed to meet its needs. Kicking every kid who is found to have taken drugs would decimate the student population. But they are supposed to take care of their students, so they have a policy designed to help students avoid the behavior, or help them deal with it but realistically a school cannot punish a student in any meaningful way. However, there are students who can be punished because the university is doing more than providing a service to them, they are paying for the education. Hence a student who violates the terms of their scholarship can be punished for behavior that a non-scholarship student could not be punished for.
In the case of Pachall, Patterson would be free to punish him in a variety of ways and has simply chosen not to. I think that reflects badly on him. Just like I expect that JJ will punish the kid involved with the hooker/thief. There is nothing mandating him to, but it should be done.
Junior wrote:i'm still blown away with the "at TCU, the penaly for the first offense should be as severe as that for the second, third or fourth at other colleges"' argument.
Pachall failed one test. yes, he's stupid for doing all the other stuff he admitted to, but he still failed one drug test (as far as we know and are led to believe). why should GP go against the school's own policy and bring down more than the policy that was approved by the school's board? ridiculous argument. yes, i'd love to see him suspended for the sheer fact that i can't stand TCU, but GP has no basis for doing so.
It wasn't Pachall's first offense. It was first, second, and third.
#1 - using weed (confirmed by failing drug test) #2 - using cocaine (confirmed by player's admission to police) #3 - using ecstasy (confirmed by player's admission to police)
So punish him for being honest about the past? Would you rather he lied about it?
how can you prove he didn't do all at the same time? As far as I know, he failed one drug test. Not three.
I have to think there will be some off the books punishment, but to say that Fatterson had an obligation to mete out swift, public punishment is dead wrong IMO.
You don't have to agree with me, as many of you don't, but this is how I see it.
Junior wrote:I have to think there will be some off the books punishment, but to say that Fatterson had an obligation to mete out swift, public punishment is dead wrong IMO.
You don't have to agree with me, as many of you don't, but this is how I see it.
Punishment was already handed out 6 months ago when all of this became known to the tcu coaching staff. It is very misleading that these news stories act like there was no punishment. It's just not public knowledge which is standard protocol at every school in the country.
Junior wrote:i'm still blown away with the "at TCU, the penaly for the first offense should be as severe as that for the second, third or fourth at other colleges"' argument.
Pachall failed one test. yes, he's stupid for doing all the other stuff he admitted to, but he still failed one drug test (as far as we know and are led to believe). why should GP go against the school's own policy and bring down more than the policy that was approved by the school's board? ridiculous argument. yes, i'd love to see him suspended for the sheer fact that i can't stand TCU, but GP has no basis for doing so.
It wasn't Pachall's first offense. It was first, second, and third.
#1 - using weed (confirmed by failing drug test) #2 - using cocaine (confirmed by player's admission to police) #3 - using ecstasy (confirmed by player's admission to police)
So punish him for being honest about the past? Would you rather he lied about it?
No, you don't punish him for being honest about the past. You punish him for doing drugs.
Maybe you can give him a cookie or a pat on the back or reduce his punishment because of his sudden honesty affliction, or even a big gold star on his next report card. The honest part is admirable. But the fact is that he broke the law, at least three times by his own admission. This isn't a school-bias thing, as I'm not foolish enough to think that it doesn't also go on at SMU, but for his sake, I really hope he has learned from this and doesn't do drugs anymore.
If I'd known that admitting my indiscretions meant I didn't have to face any consequences, I might have majored in bank robbery. I like the logic!
CenTXpony wrote:I'm hoping he doesn't transfer to TCU, I heard a rumor that he's considering transferring there because of their leniant drug policy.....
TCU has booted 6x more players this year than LSU.
Since the Honey Badger was dismissed from the program can he transfer to another BCS program without losing a year? This was the school's choice not the player's choice. What is the Evil Empire's (the NCAA) stance on this?
