PonyFans.com

Yes, "only [sic] 5 positive" is the dogma coming out of Fort Worth but that only comes from only one un-named source. The University has absolutely no obligation to make the results public and I doubt it ever will. Besides that, come on, four players/dealers and only five smokers on the team?!? #WorstBusinessEver

This will happen right after Rick Majerus becomes your basketball coach.

PoconoPony wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:It may be easier for him to cover up his drug ring in Fayetteville (the real number is somewhere between 5 and 82, according to [Gary Patterson], but yet their haven't been any further suspensions). And Arkansas is far closer to competing for a national title than TCU is.

Those are the only two reasons I can come up with for why he may even attempt to consider it.

He had the team drug tested well before the scandal broke and subsequently. Only the 4 named tested positive.

http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/co ... read-.html

"You want an exact number and the world is not about exact numbers. I know what the exact number is. Somewhere between that 5, and maybe it's five, maybe it's 82

All players who test positive should be removed from the program. We will continue to have drug problems until we get serious about it, and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

CalallenStang wrote:

PoconoPony wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:It may be easier for him to cover up his drug ring in Fayetteville (the real number is somewhere between 5 and 82, according to [Gary Patterson], but yet their haven't been any further suspensions). And Arkansas is far closer to competing for a national title than TCU is.

Those are the only two reasons I can come up with for why he may even attempt to consider it.

He had the team drug tested well before the scandal broke and subsequently. Only the 4 named tested positive.

http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/co ... read-.html

"You want an exact number and the world is not about exact numbers. I know what the exact number is. Somewhere between that 5, and maybe it's five, maybe it's 82

All players who test positive should be removed from the program. We will continue to have drug problems until we get serious about it, and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

You actually want to ban all drug users from college football?

Does this only apply to players who have used drugs while under scholarship? Or are we banning anyone who has ever used drugs?

I guess It'll be fun to see iron man football then.

Frog Barrister wrote:You actually want to ban all drug users from college football?

Does this only apply to players who have used drugs while under scholarship? Or are we banning anyone who has ever used drugs?

I guess It'll be fun to see iron man football then.

Any player who uses drugs while on scholarship should lose their scholarship and be suspended from team activities for a period of one year. And that goes for any sport.

I'll even extend that argument - any student on an academic scholarship who is caught using drugs should lose their scholarship for a period of one year.

If we are serious about ending drug use, then let's get serious about our consequences.

PoconoPony wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:It may be easier for him to cover up his drug ring in Fayetteville (the real number is somewhere between 5 and 82, according to [Gary Patterson], but yet their haven't been any further suspensions). And Arkansas is far closer to competing for a national title than TCU is.

Those are the only two reasons I can come up with for why he may even attempt to consider it.

He had the team drug tested well before the scandal broke and subsequently. Only the 4 named tested positive.

how do you reach the conclusion that only 4 tested positive?

CalallenStang wrote:

Frog Barrister wrote:You actually want to ban all drug users from college football?

Does this only apply to players who have used drugs while under scholarship? Or are we banning anyone who has ever used drugs?

I guess It'll be fun to see iron man football then.

Any player who uses drugs while on scholarship should lose their scholarship and be suspended from team activities for a period of one year. And that goes for any sport.

I'll even extend that argument - any student on an academic scholarship who is caught using drugs should lose their scholarship for a period of one year.

If we are serious about ending drug use, then let's get serious about our consequences.

We aren't serious about ending drug use. legalize it.

deepellumfrog wrote:We aren't serious about ending drug use. legalize it.

Well, obviously Gary Patterson isn't.

CalallenStang wrote:

deepellumfrog wrote:We aren't serious about ending drug use. legalize it.

Well, obviously Gary Patterson isn't.

Nothing obvious about it unless you know something that isn't out there.

CalallenStang wrote:

deepellumfrog wrote:We aren't serious about ending drug use. legalize it.

Well, obviously Gary Patterson isn't.

Wait, maybe he's morbidly obese from the munchies...

IT ALL MAKES SENSE TO ME NOW!!

deepellumfrog wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:

deepellumfrog wrote:We aren't serious about ending drug use. legalize it.

Well, obviously Gary Patterson isn't.

Nothing obvious about it unless you know something that isn't out there.

I know that the number of players who failed the drug test is somewhere between 5 and 82. And I know that those players are still on scholarship, as there hasn't been a statement to the contrary.

For the record, this isn't an SMU-TCU rivalry thing. I'd fully expect any SMU player who failed a drug test to be separated from their scholarship and banned from team activities for a year as well.

CalallenStang wrote:I know that the number of players who failed the drug test is somewhere between 5 and 82. And I know that those players are still on scholarship, as there hasn't been a statement to the contrary.

For the record, this isn't an SMU-TCU rivalry thing. I'd fully expect any SMU player who failed a drug test to be separated from their scholarship and banned from team activities for a year as well.

Your expectation is quite lofty, especially considering current standards.

Not necessarily disagreeing with anything you mention, but coach isn't allowed to talk about the incident, thus the ambiguity. It's in Student Affairs' hands. I can assure you, however, that the number was very, very small (less than a handful) and those tested positive have been dealt with appropriately, though not suspended.

I'm all for drug-law reform, specifically marijuana (that's another subject), though I also certainly respect the law: it's illegal. TCU/FWPD/Coach Patterson dealt with the subjects swiftly and they were immediately separated from the school. The school has an explicit policy against drug use/distribution, which was evident in their full-disclosure and cooperation with FWPD.

TCU's policy is no less lenient than the majority of programs in Division 1 (traditionally three strikes you're out), in fact it's one of the strictest. Faulting them for being proactive is counterproductive towards your argument.

FYI: Coach was instrumental in this investigation.

The problem, Froggie, is that no school is proactive enough in enforcing the law. I'm sure that you will agree with that.

If Patterson left for Arkansas, I wonder if it would be perceived like Carroll leaving USC -- a sniff of trouble and the coach bolts town.

Not saying it should or shouldn't. I'm just wondering if that would be the perception.

If I'm Patterson, I have the house packed up, just in case Arkansas calls. Hell, I'd walk to Fayetteville just to get out of Fort Worth.

CalallenStang wrote:The problem, Froggie, is that no school is proactive enough in enforcing the law. I'm sure that you will agree with that.

Without a doubt. Like I mentioned, you pose an incredibly valid argument.