re: The NCAA granted a waiver just now to a UGA transfer

quote:

---

While serving his suspension, Kristian has done everything right in the process and stayed out of trouble.

---

In fairness, staying out of trouble is not a glowing recommendation. I mean, you don't get points because you are acting the way you are supposed to act.

However, the tampering part came when he was caught by the administrator. He tried to cheat and was caught.
There were no extenuating circumstances. This was a cut and dried situation. he doesn't get a pass because he got caught.

The only reason he submitted his own was because he got caught. He had every intention of cheating the system. the only reason he did not was because the Administrator caught him cheating.

quote:

---

deeprig9

---

frick off

quote:

---

The question in my mind is how does this differ from the first two offenses, and the definition of sample.

When is a fraud-test sample created? Why the need for three rules if they all cover the same event? Who decides which of the three rules were broken and what is the rationale behind it.

That was the only question I had. Not being experienced in the process leaves some questions.

---

Not being an expert either I'd summarize your question down to one:

Does one have to SUBMIT a false sample for it to be tampering?

If the answer is clear in the language (I don't know), then it is indeed clear cut.

--------------------------------------------------------
He did not submit a false sample.

He definitely violated the sample collection process (by putting an un-submitted FALSE sample in his cup).

Are both tampering? One not the other?

If violating the collection process by an attempt, or violating the process with a false/altered sample is defined as tampering... he tampered. If that's how it reads, then submitting it is beside the point.

So then we get down to the definition of false and altered. Diluted? Is that altered? So is that tampering?

Seems to me there is some overlap for sure. That's the point of my post. I don't know about vagaries. But definitely overlap, which in itself is a vagary. Hence open to the whims of those with the authority to interpret.

Therefore the argument of "fairness" is a valid, but as of now- lost, one. All that's left is the "harshness" argument.

My point is why so many rules when one rule is all you need?

Just say interfering with the process, trying to tamper with a test sample, and the penalty is X?

quote:

---

My point is why so many rules when one rule is all you need?

Just say interfering with the process, trying to tamper with a test sample, and the penalty is X?

---

I agree, wholeheartedly.

If they are going to levy a double penalty for something, in this case "tampering", you should clearly define what "tampering" is. Not just the penalty. It's like they tacked it onto the end because they couldn't think of anything else and didn't like where the page break was.

Is tampering "providing a sample that is not representative of your own naturally produced urine"?

Or is it "physically altering a sample as to be unrepresentative"? Isn't taking a masking agent physically altering a sample? It certainly didn't fall into your mouth as you stared at the sun.

It's splitting hairs (tampering vs. process violation) without providing a hair.

I can only surmise it's done that way intentionally- so they can decide when and with whom to split the virtual hair as to produce the outcome they want.

quote:

---

In fairness, staying out of trouble is not a glowing recommendation. I mean, you don't get points because you are acting the way you are supposed to act.

---

quote:

---

This isn’t true in the legal system. I mean, probation and reduced sentencing are very common.

---

But this isn't the legal system. this is a set of rules and bylaws instituted by a private organization. (NCAA)

In fairness...before i retired we had people that wanted the company to pay them for their unused sick time. So, in short, they wanted the company to pay them for showing up for work....something they should be doing anyway.

I look at this the same way. You don't get rewarded for acting the way everybody else is expected to act.

quote:

---

Could you imagine a guy standing trial for murder, being found innocent, but getting 50 years for lying or obstructing?

---

But...he wasn't found innocent! He tampered with the test. that is undeniable. he was caught in the act of substituting his urine with somebody elses sample.

quote:

---

Maybe that’s a bad anaology, I dunno, but I think you get the point.

---

A very bad example since he was suspended for exactly what he did for the exact amount of time that is specified for that transgression.