- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Here's what I don't understand about the Fulton case....
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:26 am
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:26 am
Is the penalty is for "tampering"?
He didn't tamper. He "thought" about it, but didn't do it. How is that the same thing?
I am not even really sure you could say he "attempted" to tamper. But even if he did, attempted murder and murder are 2 totally different things with 2 different punishments.
Thinking about a crime and committing it are just 2 different things. It appears to me his case brings out a flaw in the rule. The NCAA should recognize this, and make a correction and not hold this kid in prison for something he didn't do.
He didn't tamper. He "thought" about it, but didn't do it. How is that the same thing?
I am not even really sure you could say he "attempted" to tamper. But even if he did, attempted murder and murder are 2 totally different things with 2 different punishments.
Thinking about a crime and committing it are just 2 different things. It appears to me his case brings out a flaw in the rule. The NCAA should recognize this, and make a correction and not hold this kid in prison for something he didn't do.
This post was edited on 6/14/18 at 9:27 am
10
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:29 am to cra_cra
I'm glad you started a new thread for this. There were only a couple of active threads on the first page of the rant where people were discussing this exact topic. Another one was definitely needed.
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:30 am to cra_cra
He got caught tampering, poured out the tainted sample, pissed in the cup, his piss passed.
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:30 am to cra_cra
Dude, once again, he did more than “think” about it. The article states he poured borrowed pee into the beaker. Got caught, and then poured it out and filled it with his own.
If you want to argue that the punishment is to severe I’m with ya, but get the facts straight first.
If you want to argue that the punishment is to severe I’m with ya, but get the facts straight first.
This post was edited on 6/14/18 at 9:32 am
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:33 am to cra_cra
He was caught tampering and aborted.
Still tampering.
ETA: His suit is not that he didn't tamper, it's that the punishment levied by the NCAA does not fit the crime. In all other major sports organizations, a tampered sample is considered an automatic failure. That's how it should be in the NCAA as well. They also have the most severe punishments for failed PED tests.
Still tampering.
ETA: His suit is not that he didn't tamper, it's that the punishment levied by the NCAA does not fit the crime. In all other major sports organizations, a tampered sample is considered an automatic failure. That's how it should be in the NCAA as well. They also have the most severe punishments for failed PED tests.
This post was edited on 6/14/18 at 9:36 am
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:34 am to cra_cra
Just for fun, this is what I posted in the other thread this morning in response to your exact question. Btw, I also think the murder vs cheating comparison is a poor one because the two are on opposite ends of the spectrum on the offense chain.
Imagine you're in bed naked with another woman about to put your dick in her and you're wife walks in just in time to stop you. Good luck getting her or anyone else to buy "attempted adultery" because you technically didn't have sex.
If a person attempts to buy drugs from an undercover cop, that person can't then argue that "well, I never technically had my hands on the drugs."
Same goes for soliciting sex from an undercover cop. Just because the act didn't happen, punishment is going to be the same.
A person running from the police throws down a bag of crack, then gets caught and handcuffed. Again, they don't get to argue that they weren't in possession of the drugs when apprehended.
The guy got busted cheating. That's the bottom line. If people want to discuss that the punishment is too severe, great. But, this "well he didn't actually cheat" argument to say be should receive a lighter suspension is silly IMO.
As others have said, if this was another school's fanbase trying to twist things like this, the board would be laughing at them.
Another example from last night:
When you were in school and the teacher passed out the tests, if the teacher caught a student with a cheat sheet before the student made a mark on the test, that student would still be punished for cheating on said test the same way if he or she got caught in the middle of the test.
Meaning the student was caught taking the cheat sheet out with the obvious intent to use it.
Imagine you're in bed naked with another woman about to put your dick in her and you're wife walks in just in time to stop you. Good luck getting her or anyone else to buy "attempted adultery" because you technically didn't have sex.
If a person attempts to buy drugs from an undercover cop, that person can't then argue that "well, I never technically had my hands on the drugs."
Same goes for soliciting sex from an undercover cop. Just because the act didn't happen, punishment is going to be the same.
A person running from the police throws down a bag of crack, then gets caught and handcuffed. Again, they don't get to argue that they weren't in possession of the drugs when apprehended.
The guy got busted cheating. That's the bottom line. If people want to discuss that the punishment is too severe, great. But, this "well he didn't actually cheat" argument to say be should receive a lighter suspension is silly IMO.
As others have said, if this was another school's fanbase trying to twist things like this, the board would be laughing at them.
Another example from last night:
When you were in school and the teacher passed out the tests, if the teacher caught a student with a cheat sheet before the student made a mark on the test, that student would still be punished for cheating on said test the same way if he or she got caught in the middle of the test.
Meaning the student was caught taking the cheat sheet out with the obvious intent to use it.
This post was edited on 6/14/18 at 9:36 am
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:38 am to cra_cra
He did tamper. He was caught pouring another sample into the test beaker. That is tampering, the moment the piss hit the beaker, it’s tampering.
Further no legit testing lab would test a sample after the test vial had other piss in it. It’s contaminated regardless of whether he tried to pour it out.
Finally even if you don’t believe the report from the test administer, Fulton admitted to tampering in a letter to the NCAA.
I want the kid to play but the he didn’t tamper defense is ludicrous.
Further no legit testing lab would test a sample after the test vial had other piss in it. It’s contaminated regardless of whether he tried to pour it out.
Finally even if you don’t believe the report from the test administer, Fulton admitted to tampering in a letter to the NCAA.
I want the kid to play but the he didn’t tamper defense is ludicrous.
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:42 am to cra_cra
Hey look this thread again.
Posted on 6/14/18 at 9:50 am to LSUcajun77
I agree there should be no more threads on this but.....we have had several posters in multiple threads claim they read the article but missed the part where here poured piss into the beaker and the part where he admits it in a letter.
The “he didn’t tamper posters” either didn’t actually read the piece or have the comprehension level of a rock.
The “he didn’t tamper posters” either didn’t actually read the piece or have the comprehension level of a rock.
This post was edited on 6/15/18 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 6/14/18 at 10:14 am to NoGeaux
thanks everyone... i haven't had time to visit here much lately. just trying to catch up.
Posted on 6/14/18 at 10:49 am to cra_cra
quote:
He didn't tamper. He "thought" about it, but didn't do it. How is that the same thing?
He poured the tampered sample into the cup, got caught and then poured it out. That's not thinking about it. That's doing it getting caught and trying to destroy the evidence. You cant compare murder and attempted murder. You compare someone breaking into the house by breaking the window getting inside seeing the resident and then fleeing and to that of someone who is attempting to break into a house and gets arrested by a cop at the scene. Punishment is the same.
Posted on 6/14/18 at 10:51 am to cra_cra
what is being lost is that the rules do address attempting to tamper/alter. And it's the same as if you did successfully tamper.
Analogies don't work in this case because the attempt at the action is stated to be equal to the action. Pretty clearly in fact.
What they are doing is attacking the penalty for tampering, or attempting to tamper, which is the same, by drawing comparisons with other organizations and sports.
In most sports a tamper or attempt to tamper is considered a fail. Therefore, the penalties for tampering, failing, or attempting to tamper are all equal.
Under NCAA rules the penalty for [attempting] tamper is twice that of the fail.
So they are claiming that the rule, not the enforcement of the rule, but the rule itself is excessive by comparison to other organizations/sports.
IF they can find leniency in other incidents on tampering, then that is just lagniappe and is another way to attack the rule itself.
ETA: and there's the additional approach of Fulton not being educated properly on the rules, and penalties as part of the appeal. I'm wary of this one, it could backfire on the program. But it's worth pursuing at this time.
Analogies don't work in this case because the attempt at the action is stated to be equal to the action. Pretty clearly in fact.
What they are doing is attacking the penalty for tampering, or attempting to tamper, which is the same, by drawing comparisons with other organizations and sports.
In most sports a tamper or attempt to tamper is considered a fail. Therefore, the penalties for tampering, failing, or attempting to tamper are all equal.
Under NCAA rules the penalty for [attempting] tamper is twice that of the fail.
So they are claiming that the rule, not the enforcement of the rule, but the rule itself is excessive by comparison to other organizations/sports.
IF they can find leniency in other incidents on tampering, then that is just lagniappe and is another way to attack the rule itself.
ETA: and there's the additional approach of Fulton not being educated properly on the rules, and penalties as part of the appeal. I'm wary of this one, it could backfire on the program. But it's worth pursuing at this time.
This post was edited on 6/14/18 at 10:54 am
Posted on 6/14/18 at 10:58 am to cra_cra
The dude swapped out his piss sample. He should lay off the damn weed
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News