Exactly. Feeling hopeful.NYCat wrote:If Miller is hopeful it can be resolved by tommorow I am too.
Nite fellas. Good win tonight. Rawle was huge.
Moderators: UAdevil, JMarkJohns
Exactly. Feeling hopeful.NYCat wrote:If Miller is hopeful it can be resolved by tommorow I am too.
NYCat wrote:
By the NCAA's ass backwards rules, they'll find a way to sit him the rest of the season.HiCat wrote:NYCat wrote:
“Recently, a trace amount of the same drug was found in his system and that minuscule amount is why he missed those games last year. One of the top Drug and Toxicologist Doctors in the U.S. stated that the amount detected in Allonzo’s urine is the equivalent of six grains of salt in 10 Olympic Sized swimming pools, and had zero effect on his performance.
https://www.azdesertswarm.com/basketbal ... izona-ncaa" target="_blank
This is your last post actively rooting for the NCAA to maliciously punish a dedicated Wildcat. Last one. Push it. I’m sick of your shit. I will follow you around like a puppy and smack your nose whenever you do something wrong until you learn.PHXCATS wrote:How so, there is measurable amounts of a banned substance in a test.splitsecond wrote:the NCAA is a joke.
The NCAA did us a huge favor before. Hopefully they can continue to test often again.
It has to be very easy to tell from the test results this is residual from the 2016 ingestion or a second one. I really doubt Arizona would appeal a second ingestion. That leaves the residual, which isn't Trier's fault.SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Just watched Outside the Lines on ESPN and for their "Villain of the Week" segment Adnan Virk went with Trier.
Joked about how somebody manages to fail two drug tests in two years and the rest of the crew piled on.
Morons
Yeah, seems very unlikely that it would be a new ingestion if the amount reported is true considering how long it takes to get out of your body.Spaceman Spiff wrote:It has to be very easy to tell from the test results this is residual from the 2016 ingestion or a second one. I really doubt Arizona would appeal a second ingestion. That leaves the residual, which isn't Trier's fault.SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Just watched Outside the Lines on ESPN and for their "Villain of the Week" segment Adnan Virk went with Trier.
Joked about how somebody manages to fail two drug tests in two years and the rest of the crew piled on.
Morons
Sad to see uneducated people get after him.
DrWildcat wrote:Yeah, seems very unlikely that it would be a new ingestion if the amount reported is true considering how long it takes to get out of your body.Spaceman Spiff wrote:It has to be very easy to tell from the test results this is residual from the 2016 ingestion or a second one. I really doubt Arizona would appeal a second ingestion. That leaves the residual, which isn't Trier's fault.SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Just watched Outside the Lines on ESPN and for their "Villain of the Week" segment Adnan Virk went with Trier.
Joked about how somebody manages to fail two drug tests in two years and the rest of the crew piled on.
Morons
Sad to see uneducated people get after him.
And considering that they also have several clean tests in between. Wouldn't they have a test at some point that would show a higher amount indicative of recent usage?DrWildcat wrote:Yeah, seems very unlikely that it would be a new ingestion if the amount reported is true considering how long it takes to get out of your body.Spaceman Spiff wrote:It has to be very easy to tell from the test results this is residual from the 2016 ingestion or a second one. I really doubt Arizona would appeal a second ingestion. That leaves the residual, which isn't Trier's fault.SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Just watched Outside the Lines on ESPN and for their "Villain of the Week" segment Adnan Virk went with Trier.
Joked about how somebody manages to fail two drug tests in two years and the rest of the crew piled on.
Morons
Sad to see uneducated people get after him.
This. Allonzo was cleared, as agreed, when his numbers reached below a specified level. This test completely renegs. It isn't a matter of "rules are rules." It's pure ill-will, and an aggressive bending of facts to disqualify a player.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
That's pathetic but sadly inline with what the NCAA does. They don't actually care about the student athletes at all and it shows repeatedly.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
I'm not a lawyer, but at somepoint (i.e. today) I think you would sue to get an emergency injunction on this if the NCAA does not make a decision by 5:00pm EST.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... 46e8e.html" target="_blankaccording to Trier's attorney Steve Thompson
If it's true they cleared him with a trace amount, then suspended him for a trace amount that was left over from the first run, I'd think that is a legit strategy.jajoyce wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but at somepoint (i.e. today) I think you would sue to get an emergency injunction on this if the NCAA does not make a decision by 5:00pm EST.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
Exactly, the issue with with the NCAA and their data free policies and not TrierSpaceman Spiff wrote:If it's true they cleared him with a trace amount, then suspended him for a trace amount that was left over from the first run, I'd think that is a legit strategy.jajoyce wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but at somepoint (i.e. today) I think you would sue to get an emergency injunction on this if the NCAA does not make a decision by 5:00pm EST.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
It's capricious and makes the student-athlete and object of slander and jeopardizes his future. This is some pretty aggressive shit.Spaceman Spiff wrote:If it's true they cleared him with a trace amount, then suspended him for a trace amount that was left over from the first run, I'd think that is a legit strategy.jajoyce wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but at somepoint (i.e. today) I think you would sue to get an emergency injunction on this if the NCAA does not make a decision by 5:00pm EST.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
Beachcat97 wrote:He's going to be cleared. Just seems inevitable.
Hot Take Television!SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Just watched Outside the Lines on ESPN and for their "Villain of the Week" segment Adnan Virk went with Trier.
Joked about how somebody manages to fail two drug tests in two years and the rest of the crew piled on.
Morons
If the amount in the test was less than the threshold given to clear him last year, fuck that shit. Heeke, Arizona and Trier's team should sue the living fucking shit out of the NCAADrWildcat wrote:That's pathetic but sadly inline with what the NCAA does. They don't actually care about the student athletes at all and it shows repeatedly.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
Yep, ESPN is trash, fuck that shitUAEebs86 wrote:Hot Take Television!SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Just watched Outside the Lines on ESPN and for their "Villain of the Week" segment Adnan Virk went with Trier.
Joked about how somebody manages to fail two drug tests in two years and the rest of the crew piled on.
Morons
Fuck him and ESPN
Yep, plus double jeopardy and violation of contract.CalStateTempe wrote:I’d tack on defamation of character to the lawsuit.
The biggest hook is the extent to which the NCAA is internally inconsistent with their decisionmaking. Selective enforcement to target and individual is always a concern.Longhorned wrote:It's capricious and makes the student-athlete and object of slander and jeopardizes his future. This is some pretty aggressive shit.Spaceman Spiff wrote:If it's true they cleared him with a trace amount, then suspended him for a trace amount that was left over from the first run, I'd think that is a legit strategy.jajoyce wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but at somepoint (i.e. today) I think you would sue to get an emergency injunction on this if the NCAA does not make a decision by 5:00pm EST.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
Wait wait wait...97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
Yes.Frybry02 wrote:Wait wait wait...97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
So he was cleared last year by the NCAA when the amount in his system reached a certain level. And now he he was suspended for an amount less than that certain level he was cleared at? Am I understanding that correctly??
Lots of high profile people are caring right now, have to keep that being the caseSpaceman Spiff wrote:The biggest hook is the extent to which the NCAA is internally inconsistent with their decisionmaking. Selective enforcement to target and individual is always a concern.Longhorned wrote:It's capricious and makes the student-athlete and object of slander and jeopardizes his future. This is some pretty aggressive shit.Spaceman Spiff wrote:If it's true they cleared him with a trace amount, then suspended him for a trace amount that was left over from the first run, I'd think that is a legit strategy.jajoyce wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but at somepoint (i.e. today) I think you would sue to get an emergency injunction on this if the NCAA does not make a decision by 5:00pm EST.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
If he actually had a lower level than the one at which he was previously cleared and it is just failure to eliminate it, the NCAA's process for him has been differently enforced.
If nothing else, Trier's lawyer likely wants to drive the narrative and place the NCAA in the limelight. I would be surprised if the NCAA wants to dig in on this particular issue.
The biggest danger is that no one cares. The NCAA is very PR sensitive, and if this gets lost, Trier's college career could die in silence.
Am I missing something? Has the definition of logic changed?Longhorned wrote:Yes.Frybry02 wrote:Wait wait wait...97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
So he was cleared last year by the NCAA when the amount in his system reached a certain level. And now he he was suspended for an amount less than that certain level he was cleared at? Am I understanding that correctly??
Trier was cleared on a Saturday last year.CalStateTempe wrote:If don’t hear anything by 5p eastern do we head to the panic room?
The logic is that the January 2018 testing revealed a trace of the banned substance, so they're treating it as a new occurrence, since it was found in a test subsequent to his post-appeal clearance in January 2017. Instead of relying on medical science and human reasoning, they're going by the book, where the rules say this is a banned substance -- and look! -- here it is in the player's body. Therefore, this circumstance is new and doesn't pertain to last season's appeal. Because the NCAA officials are in charge and they can do whatever the fuck they want. There are reasons why people involved in college sports hate the NCAA.Frybry02 wrote:Am I missing something? Has the definition of logic changed?Longhorned wrote:Yes.Frybry02 wrote:Wait wait wait...97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
So he was cleared last year by the NCAA when the amount in his system reached a certain level. And now he he was suspended for an amount less than that certain level he was cleared at? Am I understanding that correctly??
keep your political commentary to the political rage boardcatgrad97 wrote:Between Parkland and Trier this week, every national administrative organization that starts with N and ends in A is dead to me.
The NCAA is becoming as corrupt as Trump, and I don't give a damn if Machina or whoever else reports the "politics" in this post. Timing dude.
:applause:JMarkJohns wrote:This is your last post actively rooting for the NCAA to maliciously punish a dedicated Wildcat. Last one. Push it. I’m sick of your shit. I will follow you around like a puppy and smack your nose whenever you do something wrong until you learn.PHXCATS wrote:How so, there is measurable amounts of a banned substance in a test.splitsecond wrote:the NCAA is a joke.
The NCAA did us a huge favor before. Hopefully they can continue to test often again.
Grow the fuck up or get the fuck out.
The above post is embarrassing.
Seriously. It kills me that this is all over what amounts to .75 grains of salt in 1.25 Olympic sized swimming pools.mrqsjhnsnsux wrote:Is anyone else bothered by the failure to simplify? 3 grains of salt in 5 Olympic sized swimming pools dammit!
After reading ESPN's list of schools and players implicated by the ASM docs that Yahoo News got ahold of my current conspiracy is someone is mad Arizona didn't make the kill list.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
Phoenix radio is even bashing the NCAA for this. People care - the NCAA is a fucking joke right now. I believe they are trying to pre-save face by going overboard on what little they have any attention to right now.Spaceman Spiff wrote:The biggest hook is the extent to which the NCAA is internally inconsistent with their decisionmaking. Selective enforcement to target and individual is always a concern.Longhorned wrote:It's capricious and makes the student-athlete and object of slander and jeopardizes his future. This is some pretty aggressive shit.Spaceman Spiff wrote:If it's true they cleared him with a trace amount, then suspended him for a trace amount that was left over from the first run, I'd think that is a legit strategy.jajoyce wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but at somepoint (i.e. today) I think you would sue to get an emergency injunction on this if the NCAA does not make a decision by 5:00pm EST.97cats wrote:the amount is less than the last test when he was eventually cleared - it’s maddening
dare I say someone or somebodies are fishing
sad sad sad
If he actually had a lower level than the one at which he was previously cleared and it is just failure to eliminate it, the NCAA's process for him has been differently enforced.
If nothing else, Trier's lawyer likely wants to drive the narrative and place the NCAA in the limelight. I would be surprised if the NCAA wants to dig in on this particular issue.
The biggest danger is that no one cares. The NCAA is very PR sensitive, and if this gets lost, Trier's college career could die in silence.
pretty much, thank youLonghorned wrote:
The logic is that the January 2018 testing revealed a trace of the banned substance, so they're treating it as a new occurrence, since it was found in a test subsequent to his post-appeal clearance in January 2017. Instead of relying on medical science and human reasoning, they're going by the book, where the rules say this is a banned substance -- and look! -- here it is in the player's body. Therefore, this circumstance is new and doesn't pertain to last season's appeal. Because the NCAA officials are in charge and they can do whatever the fuck they want. There are reasons why people involved in college sports hate the NCAA.
azgreg wrote: