- 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
The case for Kristian Fulton and why he should be reinstated
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:20 pm
I read the entire article, and the key to this appeals process and quite possibly what may end up being a court case that the NCAA could easily lose is the fact that Kristian never technically cheated the test. Yes, that's what I just said.
What he did do is plan to cheat the test by having someone else urinate in a cup that he then planned to use. But did he follow through with actually tampering with his test? No, he did not. And while it's easy to draw a likely conclusion as to why he did not choose to follow through with his plan, no one can really give the answer to that with 100% certainty other than Kristian.
The NCAA will argue that he likely saw or sensed the test administrator looking over his shoulder and changed his mind, then tossed the other person's urine in the urinal, and proceeded to urinate a real sample of his own urine that ended up being clean for PEDs as confirmed by the UCLA test lab.
But let's consider this. How many times in life has any one of you "thought about" or "planned" to do something that you knew to be morally or legally wrong only to back out when you reached that moment when you had to follow through with it? I know I have on many, many occasions. Should I have been disciplined for planning to do these things, but not actually following through? I think not.
The NCAA's stance on this has some gigantic holes in it. Knowing what I know now, I hope that someone with deep enough pockets provides this kid with the defense that he deserves, because this is a an outright winnable appeal and, if it went that far, potential court case.
What he did do is plan to cheat the test by having someone else urinate in a cup that he then planned to use. But did he follow through with actually tampering with his test? No, he did not. And while it's easy to draw a likely conclusion as to why he did not choose to follow through with his plan, no one can really give the answer to that with 100% certainty other than Kristian.
The NCAA will argue that he likely saw or sensed the test administrator looking over his shoulder and changed his mind, then tossed the other person's urine in the urinal, and proceeded to urinate a real sample of his own urine that ended up being clean for PEDs as confirmed by the UCLA test lab.
But let's consider this. How many times in life has any one of you "thought about" or "planned" to do something that you knew to be morally or legally wrong only to back out when you reached that moment when you had to follow through with it? I know I have on many, many occasions. Should I have been disciplined for planning to do these things, but not actually following through? I think not.
The NCAA's stance on this has some gigantic holes in it. Knowing what I know now, I hope that someone with deep enough pockets provides this kid with the defense that he deserves, because this is a an outright winnable appeal and, if it went that far, potential court case.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 9:22 pm
18
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:27 pm to orthogeek
quote:
How many times in life has any one of you "thought about" or "planned" to do something that you knew to be morally or legally wrong only to back out when you reached that moment when you had to follow through with it? I know I have on many, many occasions. Should I have been disciplined for planning to do these things, but not actually following through? I think not.
He got caught in the process of cheating the test.
Why do you think he had some crisis of conscience? He was caught red handed.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:29 pm to orthogeek
I think the second he started pouring someone else’s piss into the beaker, he cheated the test 
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:32 pm to orthogeek
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:34 pm to orthogeek
quote:
How many times in life has any one of you "thought about" or "planned" to do something that you knew to be morally or legally wrong only to back out when you reached that moment when you had to follow through with it?
I would imagine that is laid out in the NCAA bylaws regarding how samples are to be taken and what is/isn’t allowed
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:44 pm to orthogeek
Just an “attempt”. That is all. Not sure how NCAA rules handle attempts
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:46 pm to Capo
They’ll fight this to the very end. The ncaa is trying to make an example out of this. It’s one of those “hope for the best, prepare for the worst”
If he comes back, awesome, but let’s not prepare like he is
If he comes back, awesome, but let’s not prepare like he is
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:48 pm to Capo
quote:
Just an “attempt”. That is all. Not sure how NCAA rules handle attempts
I’m going to take a wild guess and say the rules consider it tampering which carries a two year suspension.
I mean do some of you actually think it isn’t “tampering” unless they actually get away with putting another person’s piss in the bottle?
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:50 pm to MOT
Explain what was tampered with and altered the results.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m trying to understand your stance.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m trying to understand your stance.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:54 pm to Capo
The NCAA can define what it means to tamper with a urine test all day long, but any rational definition would require an actual execution of the act.
Yes, he had a cup prepared, and yes he pulled it out of his pocket. But did he pour it into the sample cup? And did he try to submit a false sample to the administrator? These are important points to be made, because any fool can point a gun to someone's head, but you don't get charged with attempted murder unless you actually pull the trigger.
If the facts within the article are true, then the answer is no to the last two questions, and any definition of tampering given by the NCAA is flawed. The article states that "after ditching efforts to use the outside urine, Fulton provided his own sample to the testing administrator."
Yes, he had a cup prepared, and yes he pulled it out of his pocket. But did he pour it into the sample cup? And did he try to submit a false sample to the administrator? These are important points to be made, because any fool can point a gun to someone's head, but you don't get charged with attempted murder unless you actually pull the trigger.
If the facts within the article are true, then the answer is no to the last two questions, and any definition of tampering given by the NCAA is flawed. The article states that "after ditching efforts to use the outside urine, Fulton provided his own sample to the testing administrator."
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:55 pm to LSUcajun77
IMO, it's pretty simple really. 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.
Meaning the student was caught taking the cheat sheet out with the obvious intent to use it.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 9:56 pm to LSUcajun77
I don’t have a stance.
There is a rule, it carries a suspension, our guy broke it, and no one involved is even really questioning whether or not be broke it. We’re just hoping the NCAA lets us off.
I wasn’t there but based on the article it seems pretty clear to me that, at least in the NCAA’s eyes, putting piss that doesn’t belong to you in a beaker designated for your piss only is considered tampering with the test.
Maybe that isn’t tampering, but it seems pretty logical on the surface.
There is a rule, it carries a suspension, our guy broke it, and no one involved is even really questioning whether or not be broke it. We’re just hoping the NCAA lets us off.
I wasn’t there but based on the article it seems pretty clear to me that, at least in the NCAA’s eyes, putting piss that doesn’t belong to you in a beaker designated for your piss only is considered tampering with the test.
Maybe that isn’t tampering, but it seems pretty logical on the surface.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:01 pm to TigerLunatik
Understand that.
I’m just on the side of excessive punishment and it doesn’t fit the policy that was created.
Had he used the contents or failed the test I don’t think they’re would be an arguement. The fact that neither happened and that’s what the policy states is the reason there is an argument. I don’t think he’s being treated completely fair if the NCAA is following they’re own policy.
I’m just on the side of excessive punishment and it doesn’t fit the policy that was created.
Had he used the contents or failed the test I don’t think they’re would be an arguement. The fact that neither happened and that’s what the policy states is the reason there is an argument. I don’t think he’s being treated completely fair if the NCAA is following they’re own policy.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:03 pm to MOT
These are two very important points to be made, because any fool can point a gun at someone's head, but you don't get charged with attempted murder unless you actually pull the damn trigger.
As I said, the NCAA can define tampering however they want, but that doesn't make their definition infallible.
As I said, the NCAA can define tampering however they want, but that doesn't make their definition infallible.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:04 pm to MOT
quote:
There is a rule, it carries a suspension, our guy broke it, and no one involved is even really questioning whether or not be broke it. We’re just hoping the NCAA lets us off.
There’s certainly a reason he has a lawyer and they’re appealing. And mentioned lawsuit. Yes he broke a rule, to the extent of the rule and how the policy is interpreted is what’s in question.
They’re not just hoping he’s let off. They are fighting the policy. It’s pretty clear there’s more to him just breaking a rule and being caught. The policy is worded against cheating the test and tampering with the results. He did neither. Punish him accordingly for almost cheating, but not for providing fake contents resulting in an altered test. Thats what they’re arguing and I agree with the Fulton’s.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:13 pm to orthogeek
quote:
These are two very important points to be made, because any fool can point a gun at someone's head, but you don't get charged with attempted murder unless you actually pull the damn trigger.
Again, are you under the impression it isn’t actually tampering unless the administrator just ignored what he was seeing and waited to see if he would actually submit it as his own?
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:13 pm to TigerLunatik
An “attempt” is handled differently than the act. Attempted murder versus murder.
Attempting to cheat versus actually cheating. Always handled differently in punishment both in law and life.
Attempting to cheat versus actually cheating. Always handled differently in punishment both in law and life.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:16 pm to LSUcajun77
quote:
Yes he broke a rule, to the extent of the rule and how the policy is interpreted is what’s in question.
There not just hoping he’s let off. They are fighting the policy. It’s pretty clear there’s more to him just breaking a rule and being caught.
Not really. This is the second time you’re completely wrong about the facts in the article. You really need to actually read it. They are questioning three things in the lawsuit, none of which are the policy/rule or to what extent he broke it.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:17 pm to MOT
You’re assuming now.
Stick to the facts and the actual policy written by the NCAA.
Attempting to steal a candy bar, getting caught by the cashier is attempted robbery.
Stealing the candy bar and being caught is robbery. They are different punishments. It’s pretty simple what you’re missing here.
Stick to the facts and the actual policy written by the NCAA.
Attempting to steal a candy bar, getting caught by the cashier is attempted robbery.
Stealing the candy bar and being caught is robbery. They are different punishments. It’s pretty simple what you’re missing here.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:18 pm to orthogeek
quote:
The NCAA can define what it means to tamper with a urine test all day long, but any rational definition would require an actual execution of the act.
Any rational person also knows that, let’s say in the context of breaking the law, attempting to commit a crime generally comes with a very similar if not the exact same punishment as actually carrying out the crime. So because he was caught trying to cheat Fulton should somehow be exonerated? It would be a fair argument to say you think the punishment is too harsh per NCAA guidelines, but they are merely enforcing the rules here. Fulton was an idiot and got caught, bottom line. Nothing shady is going on.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 10:18 pm
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News