Page 2 of 3

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:10 am
by LakeHighlandsPony
Boy, the world has sure lowered the bar. "it's only one failed drug test"?! 30 years ago 1 failed drug test and you were out of school much less the team. Maybe if they had zero tolerance of drugs that would stop some of it. What's next " I only beat my wife once"

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:30 am
by mrydel
I do not know that anyone here is agreeing with the policy, just stating what the policy is. When I was in school it was a 5 year jail term just for possession of any amount of pot. I did not agree with that either but it was the law at the time and if for applied to one you expected it for all even though that was not the case.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:04 am
by whitwiki
LakeHighlandsPony wrote:Boy, the world has sure lowered the limbo bar. "it's only one failed drug test"?! 30 years ago 1 failed drug test and you were out of school much less the team. Maybe if they had zero tolerance of drugs that would stop some of it. What's next " I only beat my wife once"

donta stall worth only killed one person while driving drunk.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:20 pm
by Arkpony
When I was art SMU, Candy Barr received ( I recall) over 20 years in the pen for mere possession of pot. Times have indeed changed, but it's still illegal.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:36 pm
by Glenn Sosbee
Junior wrote:Ooohh! I get it now.

As long as everyone else is doing it, we should just let it go. Linda like everyone overlooked the fact that everyone was paying players in the 80's.
Best post ever.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:00 pm
by ReedFrawg
Junior wrote:Ooohh! I get it now.

As long as everyone else is doing it, we should just let it go. Linda like everyone overlooked the fact that everyone was paying players in the 80's.


It's the new reality...would be shocked if at least one smu player hasn't tested positive. It happens everywhere and no, that does not make it right.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:12 pm
by Rebel10
Paschel will not be suspended because he went to counseling.

One failed drug test, by TCU standards, means, according to the TCU Student Handbook, section 3.2.10 Drugs, "a. failing a non-incident motivated drug screen one time will result in mandatory drug education counseling and/or required drug treatment."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/03 ... rylink=cpy

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:51 pm
by LakeHighlandsPony
So if your an incoming freshman then drugs are OK because you are given one "freebie".

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:01 pm
by FroggieFever
LakeHighlandsPony wrote:So if your an incoming freshman then drugs are OK because you are given one "freebie".


TCU has some of the strictest drug polices in Division 1. There are no "freebies."

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:10 pm
by ponyboy
Uh huh.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:13 pm
by malonish
Rebel10 wrote:Paschel will not be suspended because he went to counseling.

One failed drug test, by TCU standards, means, according to the TCU Student Handbook, section 3.2.10 Drugs, "a. failing a non-incident motivated drug screen one time will result in mandatory drug education counseling and/or required drug treatment."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/03 ... rylink=cpy



That's for a non incident. Wasn't the whole drug bust considered an incident? If that's not an incident then what is? What's the ruling on an incident motivated drug screen? If the screen was not related to the bust then let me know.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:14 pm
by malonish
FroggieFever wrote:
LakeHighlandsPony wrote:So if your an incoming freshman then drugs are OK because you are given one "freebie".


TCU has some of the strictest drug polices in Division 1. There are no "freebies."



Nice post. Now start providing links to help us out. Don't you know how the internet works?

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:40 pm
by CalallenStang
malonish wrote:
Rebel10 wrote:Paschel will not be suspended because he went to counseling.

One failed drug test, by TCU standards, means, according to the TCU Student Handbook, section 3.2.10 Drugs, "a. failing a non-incident motivated drug screen one time will result in mandatory drug education counseling and/or required drug treatment."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/03 ... rylink=cpy



That's for a non incident. Wasn't the whole drug bust considered an incident? If that's not an incident then what is? What's the ruling on an incident motivated drug screen? If the screen was not related to the bust then let me know.


I thought that the drug screen in question occurred before the drug bust. Could be wrong, though.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:09 pm
by FroggieFever
malonish wrote:
FroggieFever wrote:
LakeHighlandsPony wrote:So if your an incoming freshman then drugs are OK because you are given one "freebie".


TCU has some of the strictest drug polices in Division 1. There are no "freebies."



Nice post. Now start providing links to help us out. Don't you know how the internet works?


It was posted here a two months ago, I will try and find it.

Re: Patterson will not suspend Pachall. What a surprise

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:13 pm
by FroggieFever
FroggieFever wrote:It was posted here a two months ago, I will try and find it.



http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... g-policies

Schools of note:
TCU: (1) none; (2) "may include at least" one-year suspension; (3) dismissal.
UCLA: (1) none; (2) none; (3) one game; (4) dismissal.
Illinois: (1) none; (2) 1/12th of regular-season games; (3) 1/4th of regular season games; (4) one year.
Penn State: (1) none; (2) seven days; (3) one year; (4) dismissal.
Texas: (1) none; (2) "if suspended, length of suspension determined by athletic director;" (3) dismissal.
Texas A&M: (1) none; (2) "possible suspension;" (3) possible dismissal.