Allonzo Trier

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:49 pm

azcat49 wrote:So if he doesn't play on a Thursday, no way he plays on Saturday given they only test once a week?

Don't believe the test results are in for this week (short week due to the holiday). I wouldn't get your hopes up either way, but it's possible he could play on Saturday.

TJATUA · Post by **TJATUA** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:53 pm

Someone hook him up with a Whizzinator

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:56 pm

TJATUA wrote:Someone hook him up with a Whizzinator

There are other ways as well:

http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.r ... eID=002706" target="_blank

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:58 pm

dmjcat wrote:
PennZona20 wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
So there is no way to expedite it out of the body now???

With all the physiological advances in training you'd think there would be something to be done to rid his system of the Trace amounts clinging to his fat cells.

Human anatomy is bullshit. I've never encountered a more frustrating scenario in all my years of fandom in sports.

I can't even imagine how Miller and trier feel.
A few grains of soap powder stuffed into his urethra prior to the test will do the trick

The lab tests for adulterants and additives such as this. This would be noted as a refusal to test the consequences of which in triers case would be worse then testing positive. That outcome would invalidate his whole testing protocol.

Furthermore you can't beat the test with products such as the whizzenator. You can spend a whole lot of money trying, but you can't beat it.

Irish27 · Post by **Irish27** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:06 pm

This article makes me think will we ever see Trier play again as a Wildcat?
http://www.cbssports.com/college-footba ... s-mission/" target="_blank

prh · Post by **prh** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:30 pm

Irish27 wrote:This article makes me think will we ever see Trier play again as a Wildcat?
http://www.cbssports.com/college-footba ... s-mission/" target="_blank

Two reasons his story doesn't concern me:

1. He got a large dose injection. I would guess that Trier didn't receive nearly as much of whatever he did.
2. Much different body types on the two athletes. The fact the guy got surgery to remove fat deposits in his body is crazy. Considering the earlier optimism regarding Trier, I can't imagine it taking so long that it would go into next season (if he returns, which seems a no-brainer to me with this year's draft class).

Yes, he could declare after this year, but I feel like it makes way more sense to come back for one more full year.

CatFanOneMil · Post by **CatFanOneMil** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:52 pm

Because the signature the test looks for is stored in body fat and not blood the only way to clear it is to replace body fat, in Triers case thats got to be somewhere near 10% a really low number...so if he FATTENS UP rather than trims down the percentage of chemical in his body fat must go down...

Junk food, fatty food stuff like that...as already has been noted his percentage actually went UP when he reduced body fat, its a bit like adding to much chili spice to your recipe on the stove...you cannot take it out once it goes in the only way to deal with it is to continue to make a bigger and bigger pot of chili...the problem is the zero baseline the test is looking for...its not like he can replace his body fat, thats not the way it works...those who do not struggle to put on fat have no idea how hard it is to change that in a fast metabolism...I could eat everything and anything in any amount I wanted for 50 years and never see my weight or fat fluctuate even a little...I maintained 170 forever...until I hit 50 then it all changed...but not once before that...unfortunately the only way to counteract it is one of the other chemical signatures they test for so he's fucked if he does and fucked if he doesn't.

dovecanyoncat · Post by **dovecanyoncat** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:23 pm

CatFanOneMil wrote: so he's fucked if he does and fucked if he doesn't.

Well, that's fuckin' fucked.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:42 am

Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.

On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:48 am

PHXCATS wrote:I don't understand the NCAA hate on this situation. Seems like a good compromise to me.

I guess everyone here feels Bonds needs to be in the HOF right now.

The NCAA accepted the explanation of an accidental, one-time occurrence. Enhancing performance through that? No. The intent of the rule is to ward off enhanced performance. That trace clinging to fat isn't doing that.

Bonds was a systematic user whose head doubled in size, along with his muscles. Then he smashed 70 tape-measure home runs. He declined to cooperate with any governing body. Lied his ass off. More importantly, he went to ASU.

Terrible comparison.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:51 am

gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.

Under .005 (I'm too dumb to know the units of measurement). That's what we're looking for.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:54 am

I would be willing to bet that no one at the NCAA could tell you what advantage that drug can give a player in such infinitesimally small amounts, and therefore their zero tolerance policy is complete bullshit. Show us the science that says that allowing Trier to play in his current state presents some kind of unfair advantage, otherwise let the kid play.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:02 am

ChooChooCat wrote:
gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.
Under .005 (I'm too dumb to know the units of measurement). That's what we're looking for.

That's it. BTW, you were a good source on this whole shebang. Sorry for any doubts.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:06 am

Chicat wrote:I would be willing to bet that no one at the NCAA could tell you what advantage that drug can give a player in such infinitesimally small amounts, and therefore their zero tolerance policy is complete bullshit. Show us the science that says that allowing Trier to play in his current state presents some kind of unfair advantage, otherwise let the kid play.

Metabolic Madness.

Alieberman · Post by **Alieberman** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:14 am

gumby wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.
Under .005 (I'm too dumb to know the units of measurement). That's what we're looking for.
That's it. BTW, you were a good source on this whole shebang. Sorry for any doubts.

Agree with Gumby. My sincere apologies

Daryl Zero · Post by **Daryl Zero** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:19 am

gumby wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.
Under .005 (I'm too dumb to know the units of measurement). That's what we're looking for.
That's it. BTW, you were a good source on this whole shebang. Sorry for any doubts.

You've been a great source.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:44 am

Likewise, thank you choo, my apologizies for getting on you earlier.

There is no science that the NCAA can cite. Their stance is essentially whatever they choose to believe.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:50 am

gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.

It's typically called LoQ, or level of quantification. Sometimes LoD or level of detection. It basically means that the analyst can still 'see' some of the substance but that the method of detection could be measuring a false positive at such low levels. Essentially it's within the baseline level of noise that the method has. Unfortunately that level seems to decrease year on year as methods of quantification get better and better.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:51 am

gumby wrote:
PHXCATS wrote:I don't understand the NCAA hate on this situation. Seems like a good compromise to me.

I guess everyone here feels Bonds needs to be in the HOF right now.
The NCAA accepted the explanation of an accidental, one-time occurrence. Enhancing performance through that? No. The intent of the rule is to ward off enhanced performance. That trace clinging to fat isn't doing that.

Bonds was a systematic user whose head doubled in size, along with his muscles. Then he smashed 70 tape-measure home runs. He declined to cooperate with any governing body. Lied his ass off. More importantly, he went to ASU.

Terrible comparison.

Also, Bonds should be in the HOF.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:52 am

Puerco wrote:
gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.
It's typically called LoQ, or level of quantification. Sometimes LoD or level of detection. It basically means that the analyst can still 'see' some of the substance but that the method of detection could be measuring a false positive at such low levels. Essentially it's within the baseline level of noise that the method has. Unfortunately that level seems to decrease year on year as methods of quantification get better and better.

We should petition the NCAA to be allowed to use a test that corresponds with the last year we won a national championship.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:49 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
gumby wrote:
PHXCATS wrote:I don't understand the NCAA hate on this situation. Seems like a good compromise to me.

I guess everyone here feels Bonds needs to be in the HOF right now.
The NCAA accepted the explanation of an accidental, one-time occurrence. Enhancing performance through that? No. The intent of the rule is to ward off enhanced performance. That trace clinging to fat isn't doing that.

Bonds was a systematic user whose head doubled in size, along with his muscles. Then he smashed 70 tape-measure home runs. He declined to cooperate with any governing body. Lied his ass off. More importantly, he went to ASU.

Terrible comparison.
Also, Bonds should be in the HOF.

Isn't his head big enough?

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:31 am

gumby wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.
Under .005 (I'm too dumb to know the units of measurement). That's what we're looking for.
That's it. BTW, you were a good source on this whole shebang. Sorry for any doubts.

No worries, like I said from the start I'm no insider typically, I just happen to know someone deeply involved in this process who is kind enough to feed my addiction and keep me in the loop, so I totally understand any doubts from posters here. As bad as I feel for Zo that he was blindsided by Goodman's report it does feel good to be able to be much more forthcoming about what has and is transpiring in this situation.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:33 am

azcat49 wrote:So if he doesn't play on a Thursday, no way he plays on Saturday given they only test once a week?

Isn't the test once per week? I believe Miller said he didn't know what day of the week it was.

YoDeFoe · Post by **YoDeFoe** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:07 am

Yeah shoutout to ChooChoo for being the best source on this fiasco. I put my trust in you a while back and you came through.

Glad to have a civil board like this to freely discuss after getting my 3 year account deleted by Ace. Props to all.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:11 am

Merkin wrote:
azcat49 wrote:So if he doesn't play on a Thursday, no way he plays on Saturday given they only test once a week?

Isn't the test once per week? I believe Miller said he didn't know what day of the week it was.

Looks like a 7-10 day process. He gets tested, then it takes a few days for the results to come back and they don't work on weekends.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:20 am

They typically test him on Mondays only when we go on the road and test him on Fridays as well when we have a home stands. Get results 3-4 business days later.

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:23 am

ChooChooCat wrote:They typically test him on Mondays only when we go on the road and test him on Fridays as well when we have a home stands. Get results 3-4 business days later.

Thanks for all the info you've been able to provide CCC.

Obligatory:

PennZona20 · Post by **PennZona20** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:07 pm

I would be remiss if I didn't pubicly thank Choo as well. Thank you for quelling some of the frustration for me as this stupid ass process plays out.

EOCT · Post by **EOCT** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:39 pm

Puerco wrote:
gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.
It's typically called LoQ, or level of quantification. Sometimes LoD or level of detection. It basically means that the analyst can still 'see' some of the substance but that the method of detection could be measuring a false positive at such low levels. Essentially it's within the baseline level of noise that the method has. Unfortunately that level seems to decrease year on year as methods of quantification get better and better.

Puerco, you raise an excellent point when you mention LOQ and methods of quantification.

Another way of looking at the Trier situation is to review the history of the biomeasurement methods of even a few years ago when bioassays probably didn't even reach Triers' beginning assay levels in this case, and when there would have been no problem. Okay, so I'm reaching.

Isn't the real bottom line the level of a PED at which performance is actually enhanced? Say a little bit? And aren't we probably way below that level now? A level which is simply inconsequential?

I'm guessing the rule makers at the NCAA are simply applying the bullshit "zero tolerance" rule which shouldn't have application here.

dirtbags · Post by **dirtbags** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:21 pm

feels as though we're witnessing the NCAA trying clumsily to get a handle on something no one has a real handle on. there are lots of stories about how rampant PEDs are in the NFL, NBA, MLB, MMA, IOC, and other highly visible, highly funded sports leagues. if those groups can't get testing right, it's hard to imagine that the NCAA can.

not sure if this holds across all D1 sports, but my understanding is that the NCAA has adopted USADA style randomized urine-based testing for PEDs. it's not uncommon, for example, to see someone win a national championship in like, gymnastics or wrestling and be immediately escorted from the stage by testing officials to go pee in a cup. while this mitigates usage & cycling to an extent, the urine tests are nowhere as comprehensive (or costly, or time consuming) as blood tests for PEDs. and during the russian doping scandal last year folks were saying that even the current methods of blood testing can't catch everything.

i'm glad that the NCAA is taking steps to limit the use of PEDs / HGH in college competition (and thankful that 'zo isn't being subjected to weekly blood tests to get cleared) but the current system of diagnostics and evaluation are nowhere close to where they need to be. until we see testing reach the level of sophistication of PEDs, we're stuck with half-measures and rules that don't always make sense.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:41 pm

EOCT wrote:
Puerco wrote:
gumby wrote:
Daryl Zero wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:1. Nobody involved with the University gave him the stuff.
2. The test checks for metabolites in the bloodstream via urine. The half life for the drug in question is very short, but as I hinted at earlier the stuff clings to the fat and that's why It's still technically in his system.
3. All the positivity the past two weeks came from the fact that the number kept going down and he was REAL close. He lost body fat and the numbers went up a bit and now have plateaued. So we went from hope to "well shit it may not happen at all."
Do you know why it has to be totally out of his system? In other articles of similar bullshit by the NCAA, they at least have a number of parts per whatever that it can be at.
On ESPN last night, Goodman mentioned some tiny fraction as the goal. Close to zero but not "completely" gone.
It's typically called LoQ, or level of quantification. Sometimes LoD or level of detection. It basically means that the analyst can still 'see' some of the substance but that the method of detection could be measuring a false positive at such low levels. Essentially it's within the baseline level of noise that the method has. Unfortunately that level seems to decrease year on year as methods of quantification get better and better.
Puerco, you raise an excellent point when you mention LOQ and methods of quantification.

Another way of looking at the Trier situation is to review the history of the biomeasurement methods of even a few years ago when bioassays probably didn't even reach Triers' beginning assay levels in this case, and when there would have been no problem. Okay, so I'm reaching.

Isn't the real bottom line the level of a PED at which performance is actually enhanced? Say a little bit? And aren't we probably way below that level now? A level which is simply inconsequential?

I'm guessing the rule makers at the NCAA are simply applying the bullshit "zero tolerance" rule which shouldn't have application here.

The science and reason in this post is correct regarding these test and the laboratories that preform them.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:41 pm

Which is why the NCAA is out of line with the end goal in the AT's situation.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:00 pm

Fwiw this is the first year this particular substance has been on the NCAA's banned list. The luck of Arizona right?

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:06 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:Fwiw this is the first year this particular substance has been on the NCAA's banned list. The luck of Arizona right?

Sevun!

Alieberman · Post by **Alieberman** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:09 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:Fwiw this is the first year this particular substance has been on the NCAA's banned list. The luck of Arizona right?

Oh for fucks sake!!!!

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:14 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:Fwiw this is the first year this particular substance has been on the NCAA's banned list. The luck of Arizona right?

I've heard the same, and that lag time in updating the list this is one of the primary reasons Trier did not get a 365 suspension.

splitsecond · Post by **splitsecond** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:54 pm

gumby wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:Fwiw this is the first year this particular substance has been on the NCAA's banned list. The luck of Arizona right?
Sevun!

Mother fucker, the beast rears its ugly head yet again.

splitsecond · Post by **splitsecond** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:58 pm

dirtbags wrote:feels as though we're witnessing the NCAA trying clumsily to get a handle on something no one has a real handle on. there are lots of stories about how rampant PEDs are in the NFL, NBA, MLB, MMA, IOC, and other highly visible, highly funded sports leagues. if those groups can't get testing right, it's hard to imagine that the NCAA can.

not sure if this holds across all D1 sports, but my understanding is that the NCAA has adopted USADA style randomized urine-based testing for PEDs. it's not uncommon, for example, to see someone win a national championship in like, gymnastics or wrestling and be immediately escorted from the stage by testing officials to go pee in a cup. while this mitigates usage & cycling to an extent, the urine tests are nowhere as comprehensive (or costly, or time consuming) as blood tests for PEDs. and during the russian doping scandal last year folks were saying that even the current methods of blood testing can't catch everything.

i'm glad that the NCAA is taking steps to limit the use of PEDs / HGH in college competition (and thankful that 'zo isn't being subjected to weekly blood tests to get cleared) but the current system of diagnostics and evaluation are nowhere close to where they need to be. until we see testing reach the level of sophistication of PEDs, we're stuck with half-measures and rules that don't always make sense.

I never thought I would be in this camp, but this is EXACTLY why players should be unionized or represented in some manner. It is the players unions that keep the league from imposing insane regulations like the one we are dealing with here. No way in hell any professional league would do to Trier what the NCAA is doing. The justification is fairness and "oh he isn't losing money" but the reality is, every game he misses, he IS losing money and draft positioning. He has gone from certain draft pick in 2017 to maybe having to stay another year. He is undoubtedly damaged by an archaic policy, that apparently as has now been said, is being used to enforce a ban on a substance that JUST got added to the banned list this year. And who knows if it should even be there to begin with. There is no oversight or questioning the NCAA and what they put on the banned list, unlike the professional leagues. Its ridiculous if you think about it.

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:15 pm

gumby wrote:
PHXCATS wrote:I don't understand the NCAA hate on this situation. Seems like a good compromise to me.

I guess everyone here feels Bonds needs to be in the HOF right now.

Actually, yeah...yeah, I do.

He passes the test. He was clearly one of the best, if not the best, player of his era long before his head started growing. While he may have achieved longevity and balloon stats through use, he was HOF bound regardless. The HOF has no "decent person" clause. PEDs weren't written as illegal in the game for a long time...it was a crime if you obtained them illegally, but that was outside of baseball. And there wasn't a moment in his career when he and maybe one other person (usually Junior) weren't clearly top 2 in the game. His bulk didn't help him become so amazing with the bat in his hands that pitchers started walking him in "never walk" circumstances...his hand/eye coordination was just that good. The PEDs got him what? A few feet? HE is a clear HOF based on everything he did up to and what he did during that wasn't impacted by steroids. And he did not spend but a tiny sliver of his career even in a questionable position related to the rules of baseball.

A lot of the steroid hunt is ridiculous. An amphetamine is much more of a daily PED. Steroids, even HGH, require you to put in the work. They need to be outlawed in sports like football because, well...they hit people. Baseball, they provided a freak show. I am more of an 80's NL baseball fan, and prefer the return to singles and stolen bases and pitching. But the sideshow only hurt the precious baseball stats that a few hold near and dear. None of that is reason enough to keep clearly a top 5 player of his generation out of the HOF. These hypocritical old fools on the sports radio mics who are actually mad they didn't get paid like the young guys talking shit about everyone from the "steroid" era yet these guys were supplied uppers in bowls in clubhouses to make it thorough double headers or just a day game because, rather than cycling and lifting weights, they were out drinking their ass off the night before/entire off season. Ultimate PED...speed...and they point fingers.

Again, I prefer small ball. I HATE Barry Bonds....as a UA fan and a Dodgers fan, he was pretty much the enemy. Plus he is an ass. But if he is not in the Hall of Fame, the Hall of Fame is not complete.

And to the larger question...yeah, I think intent goes to application of any punishment. If there was no intent to enhance performance by Trier, and his performance was NOT enhanced by this, it is unreasonable to hear his case and overturn the punishment based on the circumstances, then freak out when you find out it is a high profile athlete you overturned, not someone on Wisconsin's bowling team, and use the "no longer under the influence" portion of the post ban testing as a hammer because you don't want others to maybe find a way to do the same. They decided he was not worthy of punishment...and now they are punishing him because of who he turned out to be. And the spirit of the law...not allowing a player to play while gaining an advantage on the field...is out the door while they pursue technicalities to send messages to other people who are not Allonzo Trier and do not even exist as cases at this time.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:57 pm

I am the same split second, never thought I'd be for players unionizing but this have pushed me into thst camp for the reasons you articulate.

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:33 pm

a player sued his team a while back for not starting him at QB, saying the coaches promised him that he'd be a star and by not playing him, they were causing him irreparable damage to his future ability to earn in the NFL.

Now, the case went nowhere, but if I remember correctly, it wasn't rejected by the courts out of hand.

If that can, even for a second, be entertained as a potential lawsuit, it would seem this has way more legs. Because we can easily prove the intent of the testing (remember...he is NOT being punished, so per the NCAA, his reasons for ingesting the substance were understandable and no punishment was given) is not being considered here. He clearly is no longer under the influence, or enhancement, of this medication.

It would take one time with a similar case where Chip Brockenschmidt of Dartmouth's Crew Team was cleared to return when the penalty was overturned, even if it was something more noteworthy like a doctor or the president of the NCAA gave it to him, before his measured saturation hit the levels they are requiring Zo to hit. Because, again...the penalty was thrown out. Once the NCAA overturned the suspension, he is at an equal level as any athlete when it comes to suspension/punishment. The NCAA cannot apply parts of the penalty review to the testing protocol...they cannot say "well, his story was more borderline so we are going to be harder on him." The punishment and the testing for return to play once the drug clears your system are two completely different parts of this and one does not react to the other. He was cleared. So per the NCAA, he did nothing wrong. His case was heard and they determined that he held no reasonable culpability under the intention of the rules. So that is done.

It seems to me they are engaging in a little "after the fact" rule manipulation because they realized, post review, that they had a high profile case on their hands...

Gilbertcat · Post by **Gilbertcat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:18 pm

CatFanOneMil · Post by **CatFanOneMil** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:23 pm

Gilbertcat wrote:

Holy crap now I have to go to church on Sunday...damn devil deals!

Main Event · Post by **Main Event** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:28 pm

lol

Hope he's right but I just feel like I've heard this too many times to the point i'm numb

prh · Post by **prh** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:34 pm

Ace has gone crazy reporting it like he broke the story...13 minutes after Hansen tweeted

But based off the previous info regarding testing, it seems unlikely they would have received a result today. My impression was the testing for road trips was timed so results would allow him to play both games. Could this be a result of the publicity this week?

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:34 pm

Report: Arizona's Trier likely to play vs. UCLA after 19-game absence
http://www.thescore.com/news/1213536" target="_blank
(via http://thesco.re/theScore_app" target="_blank )

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:34 pm

Well it was supposed to be secret as to not tip off UCLA, but yes he's good to go guys.

Main Event · Post by **Main Event** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:35 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:Well it was supposed to be secret as to not tip off UCLA, but yes he's good to go guys.

Let's fuckin go

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:36 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:Well it was supposed to be secret as to not tip off UCLA, but yes he's good to go guys.

And boom goes the dynamite!

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:39 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:Well it was supposed to be secret as to not tip off UCLA, but yes he's good to go guys.

Yeah kinda upsetting that it wasn't kept secret. Would've been nice for no one to know until like 3 minutes into the game tomorrow and then Trier casually stands up off the bench, takes off his sweats and goes to the scorers bench and checks in

Login • Register