Bison player suspended over banned substance

[Raider]

At a bare minimum I would think the Bison will have to vacate all their wins that the player took part in. At that point the NCAA will have to investigate his claims that it is systematic.

It has always struck me as odd that in an age of parity in almost all sports, one school was able to dominate based around "power football". Might be the answer to where that power comes from.

Ya you are dead wrong on the whole vacating wins deal. Not going to happen.

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

Because you don't become ineligible until someone knows about the infractions. In Montana's case...Robin and staff knew they players should have been reported to the NCAA and were not. Now if NDSU did an internal drug test and saw him using this substance and ignored it....then tested positive from the NCAA....then yes I imagine they would vacate wins. 1 test won't be enough for the NCAA to do an investigation however, nor should it be.

Here you go again with your rational posting. This e-griz home slice, not room for this shit.

 

[SaskGriz]

At a bare minimum I would think the Bison will have to vacate all their wins that the player took part in. At that point the NCAA will have to investigate his claims that it is systematic.

It has always struck me as odd that in an age of parity in almost all sports, one school was able to dominate based around "power football". Might be the answer to where that power comes from.

Ya you are dead wrong on the whole vacating wins deal. Not going to happen.

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

You do realize Clemson had the exact same thing happen this year.....right?

Brock is a good kid and had no clue it was illegal, so please quit using the word juicing like he was some roid taker. The supplement he took wasn’t even on the banned substance list.

Again, these kids aren’t pharmacists. NCAA needs a complete list so things like this do not happen.

In one post you say that what this Brock is saying probably isn't true. Then you say in the next post "Brock is a good kid". So he's a good kid and a liar? or He's a good kid and throws his team mates under the bus? Or He's a good kid but delusional? You are going to have to pick a narrative here.

 

[2011BisonAlumni]

Ya you are dead wrong on the whole vacating wins deal. Not going to happen.

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

You do realize Clemson had the exact same thing happen this year.....right?

Brock is a good kid and had no clue it was illegal, so please quit using the word juicing like he was some roid taker. The supplement he took wasn’t even on the banned substance list.

Again, these kids aren’t pharmacists. NCAA needs a complete list so things like this do not happen.

In one post you say that what this Brock is saying probably isn't true. Then you say in the next post "Brock is a good kid". So he's a good kid and a liar? or He's a good kid and throws his team mates under the bus? Or He's a good kid but delusional? You are going to have to pick a narrative here.

He’s a good kid. He’s frustrated.

Brock never said once in the article everyone was doing it. His mom did.....and if his mom is like my mom, 2 people means the entire global population.

Like I said it’s on the player to figure out if something is legal/illegal. It sucks that they don’t have a complete list.

 

[hubcap]

[/quote]

You do realize Clemson had the exact same thing happen this year.....right?

Brock is a good kid and had no clue it was illegal, so please quit using the word juicing like he was some roid taker. The supplement he took wasn’t even on the banned substance list.

Again, these kids aren’t pharmacists. NCAA needs a complete list so things like this do not happen.
[/quote]


If your talking about the Clemson players disqualified this year, your way off. Those boys were taking ostarine. More of a steroid with less of the bad side affects. This Brock kid was taking a pre-workout from GNC. Big difference!!

The NCAA needs to pull their heads out of their asses when they are DQ'ing people for taking products from GNC. What this kid and his family is going through is bullshit.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

At a bare minimum I would think the Bison will have to vacate all their wins that the player took part in. At that point the NCAA will have to investigate his claims that it is systematic.

It has always struck me as odd that in an age of parity in almost all sports, one school was able to dominate based around "power football". Might be the answer to where that power comes from.

Ya you are dead wrong on the whole vacating wins deal. Not going to happen.

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

Because you don't become ineligible until someone knows about the infractions. In Montana's case...Robin and staff knew they players should have been reported to the NCAA and were not. Now if NDSU did an internal drug test and saw him using this substance and ignored it....then tested positive from the NCAA....then yes I imagine they would vacate wins. 1 test won't be enough for the NCAA to do an investigation however, nor should it be.

I was assuming that the player was not a liar and that the juice came from within the program. In which case, I would expect wins would be and should be vacated. Also, the AD with the very quick "he got it from another player" smells funny. But, maybe the kid is just a liar.

 

[SaskGriz]

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

You do realize Clemson had the exact same thing happen this year.....right?

Brock is a good kid and had no clue it was illegal, so please quit using the word juicing like he was some roid taker. The supplement he took wasn’t even on the banned substance list.

Again, these kids aren’t pharmacists. NCAA needs a complete list so things like this do not happen.

In one post you say that what this Brock is saying probably isn't true. Then you say in the next post "Brock is a good kid". So he's a good kid and a liar? or He's a good kid and throws his team mates under the bus? Or He's a good kid but delusional? You are going to have to pick a narrative here.

He’s a good kid. He’s frustrated.

Brock never said once in the article everyone was doing it. His mom did.....and if his mom is like my mom, 2 people means the entire global population.

Fair enough, I'll leave it alone and wait and see if anything come of it all.

Like I said it’s on the player to figure out if something is legal/illegal. It sucks that they don’t have a complete list.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

You do realize Clemson had the exact same thing happen this year.....right?

Brock is a good kid and had no clue it was illegal, so please quit using the word juicing like he was some roid taker. The supplement he took wasn’t even on the banned substance list.

Again, these kids aren’t pharmacists. NCAA needs a complete list so things like this do not happen.

In one post you say that what this Brock is saying probably isn't true. Then you say in the next post "Brock is a good kid". So he's a good kid and a liar? or He's a good kid and throws his team mates under the bus? Or He's a good kid but delusional? You are going to have to pick a narrative here.

. . . and if his mom is like my mom . . .

Have you ever found your ball in the rough, but it's teed up on a little tuft of grass, and you're a perfect yardage out, but there is a huge tailwind, and you just don't know what club to hit?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

If your talking about the Clemson players disqualified this year, your way off. Those boys were taking ostarine. More of a steroid with less of the bad side affects. This Brock kid was taking a pre-workout from GNC. Big difference!!

The NCAA needs to pull their heads out of their asses when they are DQ'ing people for taking products from GNC. What this kid and his family is going through is bullshit.

I totally agree. But, when there are rules in place, and someone breaks them, there are consequences. It doesn't make the rule fair. On the other hand, I'm sure whatever drug he took is banned for a reason, and that there are plenty of permissible and banned products available at GNC.

 

[EverettGriz]

This is truly an unfortunate blight on the entire UNDSU program. Certainly now all of their success must be called into question. Be interesting to see how this news affects their recruiting.

 

[Raider]

Yeah, I think this Bruck Rabbons is a cheater! UNDSU are all cheaters, including Coach Climan. That Karsun Wantz was a cheater too, and will never make it to the NFL.

....and they are all fat and eat gravy and stuff.

 

[PlayerRep]

The drug testing occurs after the game, not before it. At least, it used to be done that way.

UM had a player who tested positive for cannabis a number years ago. I think he departed UM to play hoops somewhere.

The NDSU situation is interesting, but I doubt that it will have any impact on the program. It's been fun watching all of us make jokes and "pretend" like it will be a big deal.

I find that in these situations, involving proclaimed innocence, that it sometimes turned out that the person in question actually took something, like a different supplement or different additional supplement.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

At a bare minimum I would think the Bison will have to vacate all their wins that the player took part in. At that point the NCAA will have to investigate his claims that it is systematic.

It has always struck me as odd that in an age of parity in almost all sports, one school was able to dominate based around "power football". Might be the answer to where that power comes from.

Ya you are dead wrong on the whole vacating wins deal. Not going to happen.

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

Because NDSU, as intuition, did what was required to test players for illegal drugs and nothing was intentially done by Brock Robbins. Similar circumstances have happened, and happens every year, with wins not being vacated.

And just because Brock said he was doing it, which he probably was, doesn’t prove it. The NCAA isn’t going to make a time machine and go back to October 2018 and drug test someone.

Seriously do yourself a favor. Go look at the list of vacated NCAA wins and find a similar circumstance.

As noted above, I was working on the assumption that a staff member gave the banned drug to the player, and that the player was not a liar. I honestly don't know what he has to gain by lying about the source of the banned drug. He doesn't get to play in 2019 either way. Conversely, your AD has plenty to gain by saying the banned drug did not come from a staff member.

"NDSU athletic director Matt Larsen said Robbins “got it from another student-athlete.” He didn't elaborate."

Further, I believe your AD needs some [a lot of] public relations coaching. Saying another student-athlete distributed a banned drug to a FB player, whether or not true, isn't exactly smart when "We are looking into it and have no comment at this time" would do just fine. Why?

Well, Mr. Larsen:
-Who is the other student-athlete?
-What sport does he/she play?
-Did he/she use the banned drug?
-Did he/she compete while using the banned drug?
-Have you tested him/her to ensure he/she is clean?
-Did the "staff member" to whom Robbins refers have any contact with this other student-athlete?
-Did the other student-athlete only give the banned drug to Robbins, or others as well?
-What steps have you taken to ensure the other student-athlete has ceased distributing banned drugs?
-Are you familiar with the term 'institutional control'?
-Do you wish you had just declined to comment?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Yeah, I think this Bruck Rabbons is a cheater! UNDSU are all cheaters, including Coach Climan. That Karsun Wantz was a cheater too, and will never make it to the NFL.

....and they are all fat and eat gravy and stuff.

3.7/5

 

[PlayerRep]

At a bare minimum I would think the Bison will have to vacate all their wins that the player took part in. At that point the NCAA will have to investigate his claims that it is systematic.

It has always struck me as odd that in an age of parity in almost all sports, one school was able to dominate based around "power football". Might be the answer to where that power comes from.

Ya you are dead wrong on the whole vacating wins deal. Not going to happen.

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

Because you don't become ineligible until someone knows about the infractions. In Montana's case...Robin and staff knew they players should have been reported to the NCAA and were not. Now if NDSU did an internal drug test and saw him using this substance and ignored it....then tested positive from the NCAA....then yes I imagine they would vacate wins. 1 test won't be enough for the NCAA to do an investigation however, nor should it be.

Don't think you are correct on UM or Pflu. My recollection is that the NCAA determined that UM had had a couple of failure to monitor violations, which were level 2 infractions. The main sanctions and vacating of games came from that.

I think the 2 failure to monitors had come from the taser incident, in which a mom of another player who was from Missoula bailed out the 2 guys in the middle of the night, at the request of a concerned out of state relative, who also said he'd repay the parent when he saw her at the next game. The 2 families knew each other well and tailgated together before and after games.

UM and some coaches knew who had bailed out the guys. The parent had had to put up 10% of the bail amount, which I think was only $330 total (so the parent paid about $33 out of pocket).
The 10% was repaid something like a week later. The ncaa determined that the repayment should have occurred quicker, like in 3 days instead of 7 or 5 days instead of 8. No one at UM was aware of this obscure rule, if it even was a rule.

The other prong related to what may or may not have been "illegal" pro bono representation of the two players. While the exact facts may not have been fully determined, the firm seemed not to get paid. UM, the players and/or the firm said it was being done on a contingency fee basis, to use the criminal piece to set up a potential so-called section 1983 civil action. It is not unusual for firms in MT to use a criminal matter to set up a civil claim, I am told. I think one player furnished a contingency fee agreement and one didn't. Also, in many programs, lawyers had provided free work in similar situations to students, including players. The ncaa seemed to be moving about that time to stop that practice. The ncaa determined that the players got about $1500 of legal services for free, is my recollection. As you know, they letter plead nolo to a single misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. No civil lawsuit was ever brought.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Ya you are dead wrong on the whole vacating wins deal. Not going to happen.

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

Because you don't become ineligible until someone knows about the infractions. In Montana's case...Robin and staff knew they players should have been reported to the NCAA and were not. Now if NDSU did an internal drug test and saw him using this substance and ignored it....then tested positive from the NCAA....then yes I imagine they would vacate wins. 1 test won't be enough for the NCAA to do an investigation however, nor should it be.

Don't think you are correct on UM or Pflu. My recollection is that the NCAA determined that UM had had a couple of failure to monitor violations, which were level 2 infractions. The main sanctions and vacating of games came from that.

I think the 2 failure to monitors had come from the taser incident, in which a mom of another player who was from Missoula bailed out the 2 guys in the middle of the night, at the request of a concerned out of state relative, who also said he'd repay the parent when he saw her at the next game. The 2 families knew each other well and tailgated together before and after games.

UM and some coaches knew who had bailed out the guys. The parent had had to put up 10% of the bail amount, which I think was only $330 total (so the parent paid about $33 out of pocket).
The 10% was repaid something like a week later. The ncaa determined that the repayment should have occurred quicker, like in 3 days instead of 7 or 5 days instead of 8. No one at UM was aware of this obscure rule, if it even was a rule.

The other prong related to what may or may not have been "illegal" pro bono representation of the two players. While the exact facts may not have been fully determined, the firm seemed not to get paid. UM, the players and/or the firm said it was being done on a contingency fee basis, to use the criminal piece to set up a potential so-called section 1983 civil action. It is not unusual for firms in MT to use a criminal matter to set up a civil claim, I am told. I think one player furnished a contingency fee agreement and one didn't. Also, in many programs, lawyers had provided free work in similar situations to students, including players. The ncaa seemed to be moving about that time to stop that practice. The ncaa determined that the players got about $1500 of legal services for free, is my recollection. As you know, they letter plead nolo to a single misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. No civil lawsuit was ever brought.

Thanks for this summary, PR. Please tell if I'm misrepresenting the UM situation below.

UM
So, some UM staff knew what happened (the bail), but just didn't know it was (maybe) against NCAA rules, and stupidly vague rules at that. The ineligible players competed, but nobody knew they were ineligible at the time. The NCAA investigates, and later determines that the players were ineligible to compete, and wins are vacated.

UNDSU
The staff either knew (in the case that the player is telling the truth), or should have known (in any other event) that the player took a workout supplement. This assumes common sense and supervision using university property. They might not, however, have known that the workout supplement was against NCAA rules, and stupidly vague rules at that. The player competes while using the banned drug for half the season, but nobody knew the drug was banned at the time. The player pisses hot, gets suspended, says he got it from a staff member, and had been using it for half the season. But some think it's preposterous to suggest that wins could be vacated.


I'm not saying the situations are square on all fours, but I don't think they are entirely dissimilar.

 

[2011BisonAlumni]

How on Earth could it not? He straight up admits he competed while ineligible.

Because you don't become ineligible until someone knows about the infractions. In Montana's case...Robin and staff knew they players should have been reported to the NCAA and were not. Now if NDSU did an internal drug test and saw him using this substance and ignored it....then tested positive from the NCAA....then yes I imagine they would vacate wins. 1 test won't be enough for the NCAA to do an investigation however, nor should it be.

Don't think you are correct on UM or Pflu. My recollection is that the NCAA determined that UM had had a couple of failure to monitor violations, which were level 2 infractions. The main sanctions and vacating of games came from that.

I think the 2 failure to monitors had come from the taser incident, in which a mom of another player who was from Missoula bailed out the 2 guys in the middle of the night, at the request of a concerned out of state relative, who also said he'd repay the parent when he saw her at the next game. The 2 families knew each other well and tailgated together before and after games.

UM and some coaches knew who had bailed out the guys. The parent had had to put up 10% of the bail amount, which I think was only $330 total (so the parent paid about $33 out of pocket).
The 10% was repaid something like a week later. The ncaa determined that the repayment should have occurred quicker, like in 3 days instead of 7 or 5 days instead of 8. No one at UM was aware of this obscure rule, if it even was a rule.

The other prong related to what may or may not have been "illegal" pro bono representation of the two players. While the exact facts may not have been fully determined, the firm seemed not to get paid. UM, the players and/or the firm said it was being done on a contingency fee basis, to use the criminal piece to set up a potential so-called section 1983 civil action. It is not unusual for firms in MT to use a criminal matter to set up a civil claim, I am told. I think one player furnished a contingency fee agreement and one didn't. Also, in many programs, lawyers had provided free work in similar situations to students, including players. The ncaa seemed to be moving about that time to stop that practice. The ncaa determined that the players got about $1500 of legal services for free, is my recollection. As you know, they letter plead nolo to a single misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. No civil lawsuit was ever brought.

Thanks for this summary, PR. Please tell if I'm misrepresenting the UM situation below.

UM
So, some UM staff knew what happened (the bail), but just didn't know it was (maybe) against NCAA rules, and stupidly vague rules at that. The ineligible players competed, but nobody knew they were ineligible at the time. The NCAA investigates, and later determines that the players were ineligible to compete, and wins are vacated.

UNDSU
The staff either knew (in the case that the player is telling the truth), or should have known (in any other event) that the player took a workout supplement. This assumes common sense and supervision using university property. They might not, however, have known that the workout supplement was against NCAA rules, and stupidly vague rules at that. The player competes while using the banned drug for half the season, but nobody knew the drug was banned at the time. The player pisses hot, gets suspended, says he got it from a staff member, and had been using it for half the season. But some think it's preposterous to suggest that wins could be vacated.


I'm not saying the situations are square on all fours, but I don't think they are entirely dissimilar.

Extremely dissimilar.

The NCAA has absolutely no way of going back and drug testing someone. Players could say anything they want, but there is no proof. As soon as Brock was tested, and if showed up, he was suspended. That is the protocol.

Your UM example has tangible proof and staff that knew what happened.

Look the exact same thing happened at Clemson this year. Same thing happens every single year in the NCAA. Like I said, go back and look at the programs who have forfeited victories and find me an example like this where the NCAA went back and vacated wins.

 

[Raider]

Yeah, I think this Bruck Rabbons is a cheater! UNDSU are all cheaters, including Coach Climan. That Karsun Wantz was a cheater too, and will never make it to the NFL.

....and they are all fat and eat gravy and stuff.

3.7/5

?

Did I not do it right?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Because you don't become ineligible until someone knows about the infractions. In Montana's case...Robin and staff knew they players should have been reported to the NCAA and were not. Now if NDSU did an internal drug test and saw him using this substance and ignored it....then tested positive from the NCAA....then yes I imagine they would vacate wins. 1 test won't be enough for the NCAA to do an investigation however, nor should it be.

Don't think you are correct on UM or Pflu. My recollection is that the NCAA determined that UM had had a couple of failure to monitor violations, which were level 2 infractions. The main sanctions and vacating of games came from that.

I think the 2 failure to monitors had come from the taser incident, in which a mom of another player who was from Missoula bailed out the 2 guys in the middle of the night, at the request of a concerned out of state relative, who also said he'd repay the parent when he saw her at the next game. The 2 families knew each other well and tailgated together before and after games.

UM and some coaches knew who had bailed out the guys. The parent had had to put up 10% of the bail amount, which I think was only $330 total (so the parent paid about $33 out of pocket).
The 10% was repaid something like a week later. The ncaa determined that the repayment should have occurred quicker, like in 3 days instead of 7 or 5 days instead of 8. No one at UM was aware of this obscure rule, if it even was a rule.

The other prong related to what may or may not have been "illegal" pro bono representation of the two players. While the exact facts may not have been fully determined, the firm seemed not to get paid. UM, the players and/or the firm said it was being done on a contingency fee basis, to use the criminal piece to set up a potential so-called section 1983 civil action. It is not unusual for firms in MT to use a criminal matter to set up a civil claim, I am told. I think one player furnished a contingency fee agreement and one didn't. Also, in many programs, lawyers had provided free work in similar situations to students, including players. The ncaa seemed to be moving about that time to stop that practice. The ncaa determined that the players got about $1500 of legal services for free, is my recollection. As you know, they letter plead nolo to a single misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. No civil lawsuit was ever brought.

Thanks for this summary, PR. Please tell if I'm misrepresenting the UM situation below.

UM
So, some UM staff knew what happened (the bail), but just didn't know it was (maybe) against NCAA rules, and stupidly vague rules at that. The ineligible players competed, but nobody knew they were ineligible at the time. The NCAA investigates, and later determines that the players were ineligible to compete, and wins are vacated.

UNDSU
The staff either knew (in the case that the player is telling the truth), or should have known (in any other event) that the player took a workout supplement. This assumes common sense and supervision using university property. They might not, however, have known that the workout supplement was against NCAA rules, and stupidly vague rules at that. The player competes while using the banned drug for half the season, but nobody knew the drug was banned at the time. The player pisses hot, gets suspended, says he got it from a staff member, and had been using it for half the season. But some think it's preposterous to suggest that wins could be vacated.


I'm not saying the situations are square on all fours, but I don't think they are entirely dissimilar.

Extremely dissimilar.

The NCAA has absolutely no way of going back and drug testing someone. Players could say anything they want, but there is no proof.

Your UM example has tangible proof.

Look the exact same thing happened at Clemson this year. Same thing happens every single year in the NCAA....and it has become an issue. Like I said, go back and look at the programs who have forfeited victories and find me an example like this where the NCAA went back and vacated wins.

I think I agree with you, in the event that the player is lying, and the banned drug did not come from a staff member.
- If it comes out that the drug came from a staff member, I think there will be major issues not relating to player eligibility, even if the staff member didn't know it was banned. Institutional control, lying AD, etc.
- If the player is lying and the AD is telling the truth that another student-athlete was distributing the banned drug, I still think there are a host of potential issues. (see my other post on that).

As for finding an example where players using banned drugs resulted in wins being vacated, I lost faith in any stare decisis when it comes the NCAA applying rules after what happened to UM. Put another way, there probably wasn't an example of a family member paying a few bucks to bail out a player, and then getting the money back, that resulted in wins being vacated before the UM sanctions.

The T-Buffs could have some pretty big issues from this no matter who is telling the truth.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Yeah, I think this Bruck Rabbons is a cheater! UNDSU are all cheaters, including Coach Climan. That Karsun Wantz was a cheater too, and will never make it to the NFL.

....and they are all fat and eat gravy and stuff.

3.7/5

?

Did I not do it right?

It was good. I'm a tough grader. Can't be giving our 4.8s and 4.9s all willy nilly, or we'd have nowhere to go but down.

 

[TCCGRIZ]

Yeah, I think this Bruck Rabbons is a cheater! UNDSU are all cheaters, including Coach Climan. That Karsun Wantz was a cheater too, and will never make it to the NFL.

....and they are all fat and eat gravy and stuff.

3.7/5

?

Did I not do it right?

It was good. I'm a tough grader. Can't be giving our 4.8s and 4.9s all willy nilly, or we'd have nowhere to go but down.

Alright who screwed up the curve ffs??