Somebody finally found the rule book

I'm happy Fulton is back. I'll leave it at that.

How the hell does it take that long to figure something so simple out?

That was my first thought when I heard. What was he paying his lawyer for? He should have figured that out.

Im telling you, nobody knows whats all in the NCAA rule book. It is an absolute disaster. shite has been added and amended in that thing for years. It is full of contradictions.

Wow! This is a fish take on the subject... Come on, man, there's like 350 threads on this matter, already.

quote:

---

And CUM got a wrist slap for covering up domestic abuse

---

That punishment was handed out by Ohio St., not the NCAA. The NCAA doesn’t have jurisdiction over the Meyer case. They are in charge of teams and players gaining a competitive advantage in situations such as performance enhancers, players getting extra cash and benefits, illegal recruiting methods, etc...not situations like the Meyer one.

I keep seeing people post stuff like this on here and twitter. If you are upset about the inconsistency in punishment, then you should actually want the NCAA to have more power.

I was wondering all along what consituted tampering?

Would it be something along the lines of "rendering a sample un-representative of what the body would produce at that time".

so would dilution? use of masking agents ingested? what about making agents added (did produce a sample "naturally")?

and then all along, there was this "substitution" rule that necessarily excluded it as "tampering" due to being specifically cited.

frick

THE

NoCountAssholeAccountants

quote:

---

It just seems that the lawyer representing Fulton in the appeal process should have stumbled on that little nugget before filing the appeal.

---

He did. He specifically mentioned both rules by their number in the rule book as part of the grounds of his appeal. That's been a major foundation of the appeal's case the whole time.

AUG 10, 2018:

quote:

---

Jackson argued there should have been a new container for the urine sample per NCAA rules, a violation of protocol. He argued Fulton should have been punished under NCAA Bylaw 3.3, which governs athletes who attempt to alter the collection process but was instead punished under Bylaw 3.4, which involves a case of observed drug test sample tampering.

---

JUL 18, 2018:

quote:

---

It appears Fulton’s lawyer isn’t challenging that allegation; rather, he’s questioning the rule — 3.4 of The Association’s Drug-Testing protocol, to be specific — that was applied by the NCAA.

Jackson feels that Fulton violated rule 3.3

---