The whole "athlete privacy" charade is a bunch of legal crap. There is no right to privacy in this issue. Its simply the NCAA trying to stay lilly-white when they're drug testing is a joke to begin with and then they manage to stumble and catch someone, so they cover it up. Julien is a casual friend of mine, and I hope its nothing more than Sudafed, but everytime the NCAA puts out this generic statement, its drugs, plain and simple.
Blame the federal government for the privacy issues, if you must. But the privacy act regarding colleges/universities covers far more than doping. It includes academic progress, alcohol use, crime, violence: basically anything that would come through the office of a dean or provost.
As for Dunkley, one might also suspect that the DQ was for exceeding the age limit, and that when all the paperwork was unearthed he might not have been in the military as long as was originally thought.
If Demus had competed at Regionals, she too would have been announced as having violated NCAA/University/Team policy. Would you have immediately suspected her of doping even though we know it was lack of hours?
>Blame the federal government for the privacy
>issues, if you must. But the privacy act
>regarding colleges/universities covers far more
>than doping. It includes academic progress,
>alcohol use, crime, violence: basically anything
>that would come through the office of a dean or
Actually academic progress can be reported as can enrollment. Grades are not supposed to be made public according to the Buckley Amendment.
Crime would not be covered since a criminal filing would be handled in court (it could be handled concurrently by the Dean of Students as well since it could violate the law and school policy--and no that is not double jeopardy). You can go to any school's "police" office and read the log of calls.
Private schools can have a slightly different set of criteria.
There is also the issue of how HIPPA affects all this. In Colorado, EMTs will not tell the police where they are taking accident victims. Screwy and probably an overreaction.
As for Dunkley, one might also
>suspect that the DQ was for exceeding the age
>limit, and that when all the paperwork was
>unearthed he might not have been in the military
>as long as was originally thought.
>had competed at Regionals, she too would have
>been announced as having violated
>NCAA/University/Team policy. Would you have
>immediately suspected her of doping even though
>we know it was lack of hours?
>I understand the need for privacy laws, but
announcing a DQ without the exact reason seems
worse than specifying the infraction.
If Dunkley really DID test positive for caffeine, I think most people would forgive the guy. But now
everyone's going to think it was performance
Let me remind you that the named individual who is concerned about this can always disclose what happened. The right of privacy can be waived, and if I were busted for caffeine, I'd be the first to tell the world that this was what happened, in order to stop people from thinking it was something worse.