- 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
re: The case for Kristian Fulton and why he should be reinstated
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:20 pm to LSUcajun77
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:20 pm to LSUcajun77
quote:
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
Depending on the state, the punishments aren’t very dissimilar. Btw, neither of those are robbery unless force was used. What you’re trying to say is simple theft.
1
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:21 pm to Capo
quote:
Attempted murder versus murder.
Both carry a max of life in prison
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:23 pm to LSUcajun77
quote:
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.
Tells me to stick to facts and the NCAA policy, proceeds to talk about candy bars.
Yes, I’m the one assuming, reaching, ignoring facts, and grasping at straws here.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:24 pm to lsufball19
It's really hard for the NCAA to argue actual tampering when the kid throws away the other urine on his own accord and then submits a real sample of his own to the administrator. Forget the fact that it came up clean for PEDs.
I'm sure that they have a nice, neat little definition that says that this is attempted tampering, but we're lacking any form of actual execution here. It's kind of like saying that you attempted to have sex with a minor, but there was never any forced submission or penetration of any kind. More like you pulled it out, either thought better of it and backed out, or a parent walked in, and you put your pants back on before any signs of initiation. In either scenario, there is no evidence of even an attempt to have sex. It's just that the second scenario has a ton of gray area.
The kid needs to file an injunction and take this to court if the NCAA is dumb enough to not see the gray area here.
I'm sure that they have a nice, neat little definition that says that this is attempted tampering, but we're lacking any form of actual execution here. It's kind of like saying that you attempted to have sex with a minor, but there was never any forced submission or penetration of any kind. More like you pulled it out, either thought better of it and backed out, or a parent walked in, and you put your pants back on before any signs of initiation. In either scenario, there is no evidence of even an attempt to have sex. It's just that the second scenario has a ton of gray area.
The kid needs to file an injunction and take this to court if the NCAA is dumb enough to not see the gray area here.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:27 pm to orthogeek
quote:
It's really hard for the NCAA to argue actual tampering when the kid throws away the other urine on his own accord and then submits a real sample of his own to the administrator. Forget the fact that it came up clean for PEDs.
If they had the vial or whatever he had to store the 3rd party sample, then all they would have to show is that container and any residue of foreign urine on it. This isn't as complex as you're making it out to be and would be a fairly easy burden to carry if Fulton brings it to court. There is a rule that specifically bars attempting to falsify a urine test. James Banks from Tennessee was busted 15 or so years ago for possessing a fake penis to try to pass a test. He never actually used it but he was suspended by the NCAA all the same because just having something like that warrants a suspension.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:28 pm to MOT
Yes I read it again and I was wrong. Not ashamed to be wrong about certain facts.
The lawsuit is about something else besides the policy. I skimmed and missed it.
You were right, I was wrong.
Your arrogance is pathetic, though.
Doesn’t change my opinion or most of what I said was an actual argument the Fulton’s have I agree with.
It’s ashame you couldn’t understand the point in which the candy bar was presented.
Too busy trying to be the man. Don’t forget to downvote my post
The lawsuit is about something else besides the policy. I skimmed and missed it.
You were right, I was wrong.
Your arrogance is pathetic, though.
Doesn’t change my opinion or most of what I said was an actual argument the Fulton’s have I agree with.
quote:
Tells me to stick to facts and the NCAA policy, proceeds to talk about candy bars
It’s ashame you couldn’t understand the point in which the candy bar was presented.
Too busy trying to be the man. Don’t forget to downvote my post
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:28 pm to orthogeek
quote:
It's really hard for the NCAA to argue actual tampering when the kid throws away the other urine on his own accord and then submits a real sample of his own to the administrator. Forget the fact that it came up clean for PEDs.
Yep
quote:
I'm sure that they have a nice, neat little definition that says that this is attempted tampering, but we're lacking any form of actual execution here
Yep
quote:
. It's kind of like saying that you attempted to have sex with a minor, but there was never any forced submission or penetration of any kind. More like you pulled it out, either thought better of it and backed out, or a parent walked in, and you put your pants back on. In either scenario, there is no evidence of even an attempt to have sex. It's just that the second scenario has a ton of gray area
Well that took a really weird turn....
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:32 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Depending on the state, the punishments aren’t very dissimilar. Btw, neither of those are robbery unless force was used. What you’re trying to say is simple theft.
Ok
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:46 pm to lsufball19
Attempt murder does not carry life. Only 2nd degree murder (actually dead) and 1st degree (actually dead).
Trust me on this :)
Trust me on this :)
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:47 pm to orthogeek
He’s shown contrition by abstaining from drugs since the failed test?
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:54 pm to tigercross
A 2-year suspension is damn near a life sentence in college football.
If he poured the urine into his own cup and tried to submit it as his own, then I would say yes, more than a 1-year suspension is appropriate. I'm thinking 1 year and another 4 games the next season max though.
If he poured the urine into his own cup and tried to submit it as his own, then I would say yes, more than a 1-year suspension is appropriate. I'm thinking 1 year and another 4 games the next season max though.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 10:56 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 10:56 pm to orthogeek
if he's eligible we're a top 15 team
Posted on 6/13/18 at 11:02 pm to orthogeek
quote:
A 2-year suspension is damn near a life sentence in college football. If he poured the urine into his own cup and tried to submit it as his own, then I would say yes, more than a 1-year suspension is appropriate. I'm thinking 1 year and another 4 games the next season max though.
Agreed the punishment is too harsh. But Fulton and every other LSU athlete attend meetings and sign paperwork every year indicating they have learned about the LSU and NCAA drug testing rules.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 11:03 pm to lsufball19
La RS 14:27. D. Whoever attempts to commit any crime shall be punished as follows:
(1)(a) If the offense so attempted is punishable by death or life imprisonment, he shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than fifty years.
A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
C. An attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt.
D. Whoever attempts to commit any crime shall be punished as follows:
(3) In all other cases he shall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the offense attempted; such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.
(1)(a) If the offense so attempted is punishable by death or life imprisonment, he shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than fifty years.
A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
C. An attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt.
D. Whoever attempts to commit any crime shall be punished as follows:
(3) In all other cases he shall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the offense attempted; such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 11:24 pm to Capo
I'm still questioning whether or not they can prove that he even made an attempt. He got as close as you can get, but where the NCAA is drawing the line is presumptuous.
If you take their side, you have to say that once Kristian held the cup from the outside source, he was already pouring the urine into his sample cup. I say that he changed his mind and altered his course. Now he may have folded under the pressure of knowing that he was being walked up on, but he still folded and then somehow gave his own valid sample which came up clean for PEDs.
If he was truly caught in the act, a reasonable protocol would have been for the administrator to complete the testing form at that time as "tampered," and an actual sample should never been submitted to UCLA for testing.
This shite ain't over with unless the Fultons have an awful attorney.
If you take their side, you have to say that once Kristian held the cup from the outside source, he was already pouring the urine into his sample cup. I say that he changed his mind and altered his course. Now he may have folded under the pressure of knowing that he was being walked up on, but he still folded and then somehow gave his own valid sample which came up clean for PEDs.
If he was truly caught in the act, a reasonable protocol would have been for the administrator to complete the testing form at that time as "tampered," and an actual sample should never been submitted to UCLA for testing.
This shite ain't over with unless the Fultons have an awful attorney.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 11:28 pm to orthogeek
Should be some wiggle room for negotiation.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 11:37 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 11:29 pm to orthogeek
quote:
I'm still questioning whether or not they can prove that he even made an attempt. He got as close as you can get, but where the NCAA is drawing the line is presumptuous.
He was seen pouring the “sample” from a bottle into the beaker designated for his piss, and poured it out when approached. If that isn’t enough, no one in the Fulton family or on the LSU side is denying that’s what happened.
You’re better off making an argument that the policy sucks and they should just do us a favor and change the punishment mid flight, instead of questioning whether or not he broke the rule.
ETA: Did you even read the article?
quote:
If you take their side, you have to say that once Kristian held the cup from the outside source, he was already pouring the urine into his sample cup
The article, which is heavily slanted to LSU’s cause, even states that’s exactly what he was doing.
This post was edited on 6/13/18 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 6/13/18 at 11:42 pm to MOT
Well damn. Pretty much proves the attempt. Why even submit the real urine to UCLA for testing then?
Posted on 6/13/18 at 11:44 pm to orthogeek
I say a penalty reduction to 1-year and 4 games in 2018 is fair. 2 full years is total BS for a 4-year college term, especially given that we know that the real sample did not test positive.
This post was edited on 6/14/18 at 12:04 am
Posted on 6/13/18 at 11:45 pm to MOT
Does anybody know what the time frame on when the decision will be made is? Can we expect to know before the season starts?
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News