gh wrote:to tell the truth, I have no idea if the NCAA shares its testing results with anybody else. I can easily imagine their citing "privacy concerns of a student-athlete" and not doing so. I'm unaware of their being signatories to any USADA/WADA agreements.
if that's so (and I repeat that I have no idea if it is), then I wonder if USADA/WADA could legally do anything without more evidence than just reading that the NCAA had taken such an action. What if all the chain-of-custody requirements don't come up to snuff?
What would it matter? If USADA can ban Chryste Gaines and Tim Montgomery on Kelly White's say so and other athletes on emails, and Lance Armstrong on even weaker evidence then it would seem that "custody" would be of lesser concern. Also, Shaver obviously knew, yet she was allowed to run at the Olympics. At what point does someone who has served as a coach for USATF have an obligation to the IAAF family to report that one of his athletes has tested positive in another jurisdiction? Didn't this used to happen in the past where an athlete was banned for IAAF but able to compete in NCAA...how is this different? Doesn't Trinidad have a responsibility in this as well and countries should be just as liable as athletes when something like this happens.
This girl should be a looking at a life ban (though I could see her arguing in for 4 years since a precedent was set with Gatlin)! This sport does NOT need someone like her.
If the Trini federation knew and let her run anyway, then they're incompetent beyond belief.
As to Shaver, my guess is, given the NCAA's obsession with privacy for its athletes, that so long as the outcome was a matter of debate (which Shaver is quoted as saying earlier in the thread), then his obligation was to follow the rules of his school first, before worrying about any outside group. (no matter how noble or righteous their cause might be)
Indeed, I'd go so far as to guess that if Shaver outed her before the process was done that it might be grounds for termination. Not an easy place for a college coach to be put.
26mi235 wrote:Sorry, I thought that the italicized portion (following the previous remarks) would indicate that I am not in disagreement with dj's comments.
My error. I mistook your itals as emphasis, not sarcasm.
To not award Oregon the title is yet another example of NCAA lunacy. Unlike in a "team" sport like football or basketball where the contributions of one person can not be specifically determined, in track you can and its easy. If this is the result then why drug test? The athletes in the individual events need their proper respects as well as they need to be moved up just like with international medals. By not rewarding Oregon the title it is penalizing Oregon and others for playing by the rules and essentially saying LSU is still the champ since theirs was vacated. By not moving athletes into the vacated individual spots they are sending the wrong message.
Let me add. This is a policy that needs challenging in court and perhaps Oregon will pursue it in that manner. I am sure a certain UO alum would be happy to provide legal services to fight this issue. Certainly if I were an athlete or athletes in relay impacted I would do what I could legally to get what I won.
To make matters worse the damn NCAA's own website STILL shows pic of LSU team and all sorts of headlines on their title, etc! This is insane!
sprintdoc wrote:To not award Oregon the title is yet another example of NCAA lunacy. Unlike in a "team" sport like football or basketball where the contributions of one person can not be specifically determined, in track you can and its easy. If this is the result then why drug test? The athletes in the individual events need their proper respects as well as they need to be moved up just like with international medals. By not rewarding Oregon the title it is penalizing Oregon and others for playing by the rules and essentially saying LSU is still the champ since theirs was vacated. By not moving athletes into the vacated individual spots they are sending the wrong message.
I understand, but in an NCAA meet, the fairest thing to do would be to redo all the scoring in events that the illegal participant participated in, which could result in a lot of final standings being altered.. Unlike in 2012, if the third place team was close to the second place team, and the DQ of the athlete in certain events would have allowed the third place team to pass the second place team to win the championship, might that be an issue? And what if the second place team ran a suboptimal team in the final relay event, based on the fact that they felt they had 2nd place sewn up but couldn't catch the first place team, and then, months later due to a DQ, they found out that doing that cost them the team title? I think this issue might be a little more complicated than a DQ in football or basketball...
This Wazzu-ite who still enjoys seeing the Ducks TnF'ers getting their just desserts from the Cougs, even if rarely these days, hopes the Ducks takes the NZAA to Court to have the title awarded to the rightful winner; presumably the Ducks. Although Blues has it right and the scores should all be recalculated.
Blues you are right that ALL the results must be adjusted and rescored but that happens at a meet when someone is DQ'd for interference or a hurdle violation or such. There is testing at the meet and someone in violation should be removed from the meet and if the 4th place person gets to move to third then they deserve their award, etc.
While I get your point regarding the relay choice that is a choice and teams could consider a potential violation and trust me usually teams are trying to use max effort to even be 2nd or 3rd as there are big bonus checks tied to these spots for most coaches and the obvious pride to place as high as possible. I would agree if it were just to move from 24th up to 18th where there is no bonus involved. Most bonuses stop at top 10 team finishes.
It's my understanding that the NCAA told LSU that even if Hacket hadn't scored a single point, they still would have had to forfeit the title. The rule is that every athlete that a school brings to the meet must pass the drug tests, regardless of how they perform.
They should do the same thing when they removed UTEP from the team championship in XC. In football, it would have been some other team that they would have had to beat but in T&F and XC, the only things that you cannot control to an extent is for those that did not make the event or the event final. In XC it will not have much of a differential impact on the scoring relative to the size of the scores and all the teams would have their scores decrease by about the same amount. Track there are many more 'non-neutral' changes.
It's my understanding that the NCAA told LSU that even if Hacket hadn't scored a single point, they still would have had to forfeit the title. The rule is that every athlete that a school brings to the meet must pass the drug tests, regardless of how they perform.
Is the drug test that was failed one from the NCAA or was it administered elsewhere? I am guessing from this that it was the NCAAs test at the meet.
26mi235 wrote:Is the drug test that was failed one from the NCAA or was it administered elsewhere? I am guessing from this that it was the NCAAs test at the meet.
Yes, she flunked a test that was administered after the 4x100 relay final.
gh wrote:The NCAA has apparently decided to leave the national title as "vacated"; no promotion of Oregon to the top spot.
Which smacks of abject laziness and cowardice all around. They have no justification to deny the Ducks what is rightfully theirs, and no way of explaining their way out of refusing to award them the title. So they strip the title from LSU, and go hide under the bed.
Reminds me of what the NARAS did after they stripped Rob and Fab of the New Artist Grammy; that is, they vacated the award, rather than (1) give it to the real vocalists and musicians of Milli Vanilli, or (2) give it to the artists who finished 2nd in the final tally. To say nothing of the 2005 Heisman Trophy situation.
Jazzcyclist with Arkansas it was an academic ineligibility that led to their stripping of their titles. Totally different than a test tied directly to the championships themselves.
sprintdoc wrote:Jazzcyclist with Arkansas it was an academic ineligibility that led to their stripping of their titles. Totally different than a test tied directly to the championships themselves.
Perhaps in the track world, but not in the eyes of the NCAA, which views a failed doping test as a matter of ineligibilty, the same as an academic ineligibility.
