Bison player suspended over banned substance

[2011BisonAlumni]

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.

Overall I’ll say the biggest issue is the lack of knowledge available to the player. This specific supplement is not on a banned list, but contains stimulants that are banned. This isn’t like he was taking anabolic steroids or trying to hide in a drug test. It was a workout powder you can buy at GNC.

There should be a concise list available so players know what is legal and not legal. It isn’t fair to the player.

I'd feel far different about this entire situation if this was an anabolic steroid, something specifically noted on the banned substance list, known admittance by a player saying they were taking something they knew was illegal etc etc.....but this, by all accounts, was an honest mistake. I really don't think Brock should be suspended.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Yes, generally, on UM. Some coaches knew how the guys were bailed out. Don't know how many or how much of athletic department knew. No one knew of the "rule" or was advised of it. No one knew the player was ineligible. Only Tru played, I think. Kemp was hurt and didn't play, or play much. UM would never play a player that was ineligible or that they believed could be ineligible.

Don't think it ever occurred to anyone that a mom couldn't get a call in the middle of the night from a concerned family member in CA, pay $35 or so to get the guys bailed out that night, get paid back a week later, and then have UM end up with a significant ncaa violation and sanctions.

The ncaa has done some stupid things, has some stupid rules, and has taken some ridiculous positions, but this one has to be one of the all time dumbest.

What parent would not bail out kids when a concerned family member called from CA in the middle of the night, and asked?

What parent would ever think that $35 for this would be an ncaa violation?

Another thing I forgot to mention, is that the parent and her husband, who lived-in Missoula, were considered to be boosters because they had season tickets and perhaps donated to UM. Pflu made a mistake when he admitted that he probably knew that they were boosters. He should have just said, "I don't know." He wasn't advised properly by UM or his lawyer.

UM and Engstrom didn't fully and properly defend agains the ncaa inquiry, in my view. UM didn't even hire outside counsel for the first 6 months. By them, most of the "damage" was done.

 

[kemajic]

Recall it was our illustrious president and current chemistry professor that willfully offered up a package of sanctions to the NCAA that included the vacated wins to take the heat off rather than come up with the balls to fight them.

 

[ilovethecats]

Wait....ndsu had players using banned substances? Color me shocked!

:roll:

 

[DuCharme]

The kid says it’s a “pre workout” drink. Athletes know that’s a stimulant. Stimulants are banned. He also says “you can’t get this specific one at Walmart or anything”.

My sons use pre-workout. It’s like they’re cars on nitrous with that stuff.

 

[2011BisonAlumni]

Wait....ndsu had players using banned substances? Color me shocked!

:roll:

Every college football program in the country has a player who takes an illegal supplement at one point or another. It happens and significant portion of those players do not know what they are taking is illegal. Had a really good friend of mine (went to D2 school) who had a hip surgery, lost a bunch of weight and was taking a supplement suggested by his doctor. Didn't run it through the S&C coach to vet it and he got popped.

To suggest that NDSU, as a program, is getting some big edge is comical...at best.Again, nearly 600 NDSU players at NDSU, since 2010, have been randomly tested in the playoffs by the NCAA, and one got popped for a workout supplement.

It' a crappy deal but nobody was trying to do anything intentional. Brock didn't know it was illegal and the individual who suggested it didn't know as well.

 

[SeattleBobcat]

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.

I wouldn't be so sure....plus if any fan base is an expert on vacating wins it's this one.

 

[reinell30]

Banned substance or not, if you don't know what it is why would you risk anything and put this crap in your body? If it doesn't come from the Doctor, leave it alone!

 

[biga75]

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.

I wouldn't be so sure....plus if any fan base is an expert on vacating wins it's this one.

:lol: :thumb:
You're Damn Right!

 

[blackfoot griz]

Bison 2011...Unfortunately, all the NCAA athletes that have ever passed a test really don't count...it's expected that they do pass. It's the ones that don't that DON'T pass that raise the red flag. You have a guy that didn't and have a problem. It sucks but it's out there.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Wait....ndsu had players using banned substances? Color me shocked!

:roll:

Every college football program in the country has a player who takes an illegal supplement at one point or another.

Link?

 

[poorgriz]

Wait....ndsu had players using banned substances? Color me shocked!

:roll:

Every college football program in the country has a player who takes an illegal supplement at one point or another. It happens and significant portion of those players do not know what they are taking is illegal. Had a really good friend of mine (went to D2 school) who had a hip surgery, lost a bunch of weight and was taking a supplement suggested by his doctor. Didn't run it through the S&C coach to vet it and he got popped.

To suggest that NDSU, as a program, is getting some big edge is comical...at best.Again, nearly 600 NDSU players at NDSU, since 2010, have been randomly tested in the playoffs by the NCAA, and one got popped for a workout supplement.

It' a crappy deal but nobody was trying to do anything intentional. Brock didn't know it was illegal and the individual who suggested it didn't know as well.

Wait just a minute here, is this for real? Please post those numbers again because they haven't sunk in after the 19th time you've posted them in this thread.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

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.

Overall I’ll say the biggest issue is the lack of knowledge available to the player. This specific supplement is not on a banned list, but contains stimulants that are banned. This isn’t like he was taking anabolic steroids or trying to hide in a drug test. It was a workout powder you can buy at GNC.

There should be a concise list available so players know what is legal and not legal. It isn’t fair to the player.

I'd feel far different about this entire situation if this was an anabolic steroid, something specifically noted on the banned substance list, known admittance by a player saying they were taking something they knew was illegal etc etc.....but this, by all accounts, was an honest mistake. I really don't think Brock should be suspended.

1. The banned list is not exhaustive. It says so in the rules.
2. Banned is banned. Steroids or "pre-workout" or even $35 to bail out a scared family friend.
3. It doesn't matter if anyone knew it was banned. It is banned.
4. It all might suck, but thems the rules. And they aren't such if they aren't enforced.
5. The "biggest issue" isn't lack of knowledge available to the player. The biggest issue is (a) the kid is truthful, and the staff provided the banned drug; or (b) The AD is truthful, and there is a student-athlete who distributed banned drugs to student athlete(s). They can't both be telling the truth, and whichever one is lying creates issues.

 

[TCCGRIZ]

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.

Overall I’ll say the biggest issue is the lack of knowledge available to the player. This specific supplement is not on a banned list, but contains stimulants that are banned. This isn’t like he was taking anabolic steroids or trying to hide in a drug test. It was a workout powder you can buy at GNC.

There should be a concise list available so players know what is legal and not legal. It isn’t fair to the player.

I'd feel far different about this entire situation if this was an anabolic steroid, something specifically noted on the banned substance list, known admittance by a player saying they were taking something they knew was illegal etc etc.....but this, by all accounts, was an honest mistake. I really don't think Brock should be suspended.

Wait, what ??? The kid can't read ??? Every product out there has the ingredients stamped n it. Last time I checked " ignorance " is not a defense

 

[2011BisonAlumni]

Wait....ndsu had players using banned substances? Color me shocked!

:roll:

Every college football program in the country has a player who takes an illegal supplement at one point or another. It happens and significant portion of those players do not know what they are taking is illegal. Had a really good friend of mine (went to D2 school) who had a hip surgery, lost a bunch of weight and was taking a supplement suggested by his doctor. Didn't run it through the S&C coach to vet it and he got popped.

To suggest that NDSU, as a program, is getting some big edge is comical...at best.Again, nearly 600 NDSU players at NDSU, since 2010, have been randomly tested in the playoffs by the NCAA, and one got popped for a workout supplement.

It' a crappy deal but nobody was trying to do anything intentional. Brock didn't know it was illegal and the individual who suggested it didn't know as well.

Wait just a minute here, is this for real? Please post those numbers again because they haven't sunk in after the 19th time you've posted them in this thread.

18 players are randomly selected for testing before every playoff game. Yes.

 

[2011BisonAlumni]

Bison 2011...Unfortunately, all the NCAA athletes that have ever passed a test really don't count...it's expected that they do pass. It's the ones that don't that DON'T pass that raise the red flag. You have a guy that didn't and have a problem. It sucks but it's out there.

Correct but one player, taking a supplement that he didn’t know was illegal, and a motivational speaker recommending a supplement, that he also didn’t know was illegal, does not scream to me a lack of institutional control.

Brock should have went to the S&C coach, which is the standard protocol to make sure it was safe to us.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Wait....ndsu had players using banned substances? Color me shocked!

:roll:

Every college football program in the country has a player who takes an illegal supplement at one point or another. It happens and significant portion of those players do not know what they are taking is illegal. Had a really good friend of mine (went to D2 school) who had a hip surgery, lost a bunch of weight and was taking a supplement suggested by his doctor. Didn't run it through the S&C coach to vet it and he got popped.

To suggest that NDSU, as a program, is getting some big edge is comical...at best.Again, nearly 600 NDSU players at NDSU, since 2010, have been randomly tested in the playoffs by the NCAA, and one got popped for a workout supplement.

It' a crappy deal but nobody was trying to do anything intentional. Brock didn't know it was illegal and the individual who suggested it didn't know as well.

Wait just a minute here, is this for real? Please post those numbers again because they haven't sunk in after the 19th time you've posted them in this thread.

18 players are randomly selected for testing before every playoff game. Yes.

So, how many random tests does that equal since 2010? 250? 300?

 

[2011BisonAlumni]

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.

Overall I’ll say the biggest issue is the lack of knowledge available to the player. This specific supplement is not on a banned list, but contains stimulants that are banned. This isn’t like he was taking anabolic steroids or trying to hide in a drug test. It was a workout powder you can buy at GNC.

There should be a concise list available so players know what is legal and not legal. It isn’t fair to the player.

I'd feel far different about this entire situation if this was an anabolic steroid, something specifically noted on the banned substance list, known admittance by a player saying they were taking something they knew was illegal etc etc.....but this, by all accounts, was an honest mistake. I really don't think Brock should be suspended.

1. The banned list is not exhaustive. It says so in the rules.
2. Banned is banned. Steroids or "pre-workout" or even $35 to bail out a scared family friend.
3. It doesn't matter if anyone knew it was banned. It is banned.
4. It all might suck, but thems the rules. And they aren't such if they aren't enforced.
5. The "biggest issue" isn't lack of knowledge available to the player. The biggest issue is (a) the kid is truthful, and the staff provided the banned drug; or (b) The AD is truthful, and there is a student-athlete who distributed banned drugs to student athlete(s). They can't both be telling the truth, and whichever one is lying creates issues.

Yes it says the list is not exhaustive....but it is pretty clear that in and of itself creates issues. Put a complete and extensive list out there. Then it is plain as day regarding what specific drugs are legal and illegal.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Bison 2011...Unfortunately, all the NCAA athletes that have ever passed a test really don't count...it's expected that they do pass. It's the ones that don't that DON'T pass that raise the red flag. You have a guy that didn't and have a problem. It sucks but it's out there.

Correct but one player, taking a supplement that he didn’t know was illegal, and a motivational speaker recommending a supplement, that he also didn’t know was illegal, does not scream to me a lack of institutional control.

Brock should have went to the S&C coach, which is the standard protocol to make sure it was safe to us.

Wait. So it was someone on the payroll who gave him the banned drug? Is the AD lying?

 

[2011BisonAlumni]

Every college football program in the country has a player who takes an illegal supplement at one point or another. It happens and significant portion of those players do not know what they are taking is illegal. Had a really good friend of mine (went to D2 school) who had a hip surgery, lost a bunch of weight and was taking a supplement suggested by his doctor. Didn't run it through the S&C coach to vet it and he got popped.

To suggest that NDSU, as a program, is getting some big edge is comical...at best.Again, nearly 600 NDSU players at NDSU, since 2010, have been randomly tested in the playoffs by the NCAA, and one got popped for a workout supplement.

It' a crappy deal but nobody was trying to do anything intentional. Brock didn't know it was illegal and the individual who suggested it didn't know as well.

Wait just a minute here, is this for real? Please post those numbers again because they haven't sunk in after the 19th time you've posted them in this thread.

18 players are randomly selected for testing before every playoff game. Yes.

So, how many random tests does that equal since 2010? 250? 300?

You can do the math...or maybe you can’t