- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: wafb reporting Martin and ALeva NOT SO FAST we will decide reinstatement
Posted on 10/25/11 at 6:58 pm to dreaux
Posted on 10/25/11 at 6:58 pm to dreaux
quote:
impossible to answer. Obviously you would run a tight ship, test positive for anything and they are gone regardless of the individual. Am I right? People can and should be treated on a individual basis. I am going to assume you think all three of these guys are low character kids even though you don't know them right? Are you alleva?
Lol, Im not questioning character here, I'm and alcoholic and addict myself, Ive been clean and sober for a number of years. No one enabled me, they didnt say " oh its just pot, no problem " They were decent enough hold me accountable for my actions
2
Posted on 10/25/11 at 6:58 pm to bradwieser
quote:
I hate University administrators, bunch of pompous pussy foots.
yep
Posted on 10/25/11 at 6:58 pm to kennymorgan
quote:
"Institutional Control" is a very significant factor in an NCAA investigation and when a program is on probation the necessity to maintain institutional control is an absolute necessity
Institutional control as defined by the NCAA does not include weed tests, and bar fights.
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:01 pm to kennymorgan
quote:bullshite!
Aleva and Martin did not create this situation.
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:03 pm to 756
quote:
However, President Michael Martin told the USA Today the players must first "get their act together" before being reinstated to the team. Martin said the decision is up to athletic director Joe Alleva, who did not immediately respond Monday to a text message on the matter.
All he had to do was say 'no comment, this is an internal matter'. BUT, he chose to put himself and Aleva in the equation. ONLY possible reason was to feather their own beds. BIG mistake. The tail will wag the dog in this one and they will both lose their jobs if they butt heads with this freight train. Maybe they just want to pretend they are running things and ultimately say 'OK, they can play', but they just look silly....this is just typical petty university bureaucrat politics....
This post was edited on 10/25/11 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:03 pm to NC_Tigah
They should both lose their jobs if the three are not reinstated for LSU/Bama 
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:03 pm to BGSB
quote:
hey were decent enough hold me accountable for my actions
Whether or not they should be held accountable is not the issue in this thread.
They have been held accountable. The issue in this thread is whether or not 2 upper level administrators, for whom this type of decision is normally far below them on the ladder, should come in and supersede the decision that has been made.
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:04 pm to jacks40
quote:
First time offender vs repeat offender should get different punishments.
Has it been established whether these guys are 1st time offenders? If so, link me to it and I'll take back everything I've posted. If that hasn't been established, then how is everyone so sure what is driving the suspensions?
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:05 pm to lsuguru
quote:Alleva yes. Martin no
They should both lose their jobs if the three are not reinstated for LSU/Bama
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:08 pm to BGSB
quote:
Lol, Im not questioning character here, I'm and alcoholic and addict myself, Ive been clean and sober for a number of years. No one enabled me, they didnt say " oh its just pot, no problem " They were decent enough hold me accountable for my actions
My appogies
I was a addict for 15 years and have been clean for five. Some of the most successful and intelligent people I know smoke pot ( and my addiction was much more then just pot). My point is, you have to know more and not just throw people out in the cold. Maybe alleva knows more then us, maybe he has an agenda. But from what we know, they were caught smoking fake weed and never been in trouble before. Not that bad imo
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:09 pm to NC_Tigah
In fact, considering Alleva's background in Durham, the clock should be ticking RIGHT NOW!
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
They should both lose their jobs if the three are not reinstated for LSU/Bama
Hey, I think this is all planned! This team plays it's best when there is friction and turmoil. That being said, ENOUGH ALREADY!!!
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:10 pm to 1984Tiger
quote:
Has it been established whether these guys are 1st time offenders?
you are focusing in on the micro, I'm talking big picture.
They may not be, and probably aren't first time offenders, which is cause for not granting them leniency. There may be other factors at work that would support a harsher punishment or a more forgiving attitude.
Im only arguing that saying as you did
quote:is a bright line rule which is not a good idea. It leaves no room for nuance
Anyone who fails an in-season drug test should be suspended
This post was edited on 10/25/11 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:10 pm to lsuguru
quote:
They should both lose their jobs if the three are not reinstated for LSU/Bama
If that is sarcasm it sucks and so do you
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:12 pm to Maximus
Alleva knows how to handle these situations. Look how great he handled the Duke Lacrosse thing.
___________________________
aint that the truth....
___________________________
aint that the truth....
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:13 pm to dreaux
quote:But worse than being innocent of rape?
they were caught smoking fake weed and never been in trouble before. Not that bad imo
The latter of which was so f*cking "serious" it led Joltin' Joe Alleva to decimate several student athlete's lives at Duke.
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:18 pm to jacks40
quote:
bright line rule which is not a good idea. It leaves no room for nuance
So what are the "nuances" that would need to be considered before suspending someone for a failed drug test "in-season"? Taking into consideration of course that every athlete is made aware of the testing policy and what constitutes a failed drug test.
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:20 pm to houstontiger
quote:
Alleva faced some criticism for the way the university handled the controversial Duke lacrosse team rape allegations in 2006. Despite the four defendants being later acquitted of the charges against them, the head lacrosse coach, a winner of national coach of the year, was forced to resign. In addition, the 2005 lacrosse season was canceled during the ongoing investigation even though 43 of the 47 players were not accused of any wrongdoing. Families of 38 of the 47 lacrosse players have filed a lawsuit against Duke University for multiple offenses in the handling of the case.
[edit]Controversy
In 2006, Alleva and his sons were involved in a boating accident which left Alleva with an injured head. His son, J.D., was charged with operating a boat while impaired after refusing to give a blood sample for testing. Three officers smelled alcohol on him hours after the incident.
thats all u need to know about alleva
you have to wonder what in the frick LSU was thinking hiring him after this?
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:23 pm to 1984Tiger
quote:You know that in substance and for a fact?
Taking into consideration of course that every athlete is made aware of the testing policy and what constitutes a failed drug test.
Understand there will be BS annihilating f/u questions based upon the answer.
Posted on 10/25/11 at 7:28 pm to 1984Tiger
quote:
So what are the "nuances" that would need to be considered before suspending someone for a failed drug test "in-season
type of drug, ie weed or adderall(wout a script)v heroin, first positive test or multiple, other areas of behavior problems, academic standing of the student-athlete, how long the student has been at the university, etc.
Not everything I listed would be on everyone elses list nor is mine all inclusive. The fact that reasonable minds could differ on the list is just further proof that some room for personal adjustment should be allowed.
ETA your own statement that if they were 1st time offenders you would take back everything you said in this thread indicates you think that as well. If not why else take it all back?
ETA2 why would an in-season positive test be worse than a offseason positive test? Weed is illegal all year not just football season. The only answer I see is that you are more concerned with it affecting your sports team's performance than some moral righteousness bc the players broke the law.
This post was edited on 10/25/11 at 7:33 pm
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News