-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Ray Brown loses year for suspension
- Thread starter tornado
- Start date
hoops guru
New member
I can give plenty of examples of kids that did all those things and worse, and never missed a game.
MacabreMob
New member
flipper said:
I understand what you mean.
I am typically a kind of guy that lets things speak for themselves.
I am usually not on the 'offensive'. Yet, IMO, I pack a pretty solid 'defensive'.
So you see, it comes to me first - I have to first take it - then I dish it back out.
Funny how all during the 2004-05 season, I saw Illini fans all the time telling me that I should root for 'history in the making' and since I am a resident of Illinois it should be no problem (and my duty as a resident). Then funnier, I never saw those worthless crack-pipes after mid-February of this past season.
So yes - dish it - you better be ready to take it. In my situation, it seems like I always have to take it.
Monday is gonna be an interesting day. Sure I am going to see a few people I haven't seen for a while. If you run into me - I will be the guy proudly wearing red. Try to stick a fork in me - be ready to get a knife in return.
MacabreMob
New member
flipper said:
Agreed.
When the whole thing about drug testing first came up, the NCAA basically told all member schools to do drug testing and impose sanctions for violations.
The sanctions vary from school to school, which explains a lot of variations in the penalties for a positive.
A player caught with, oh, let's say an ounce of cocaine might receive light sanctions, because that might not trigger a drug test, so there's no actual evidence of useage.
The NCAA also said (effectively), "If you bring a player to one of our tournaments who tests positive, we will spank you hard". That's typical of the NCAA. If the in-school stuff fails and the NCAA finds it out on their own, they come out with harsh penalties.
As long as pot is illegal, the NCAA is going to have severe penalties. A positive in the NCAA tourneys is easily avoidable several ways. If those ways are missed, then there will be a price to pay.
Just to throw out some numbers - the latest estimate of the number of people in the USA who have smoked pot is 97 million. The number of people who voted for Tyler Hicks to win American Idol was 63 million. The number of people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 was 59 million.
The sanctions vary from school to school, which explains a lot of variations in the penalties for a positive.
A player caught with, oh, let's say an ounce of cocaine might receive light sanctions, because that might not trigger a drug test, so there's no actual evidence of useage.
The NCAA also said (effectively), "If you bring a player to one of our tournaments who tests positive, we will spank you hard". That's typical of the NCAA. If the in-school stuff fails and the NCAA finds it out on their own, they come out with harsh penalties.
As long as pot is illegal, the NCAA is going to have severe penalties. A positive in the NCAA tourneys is easily avoidable several ways. If those ways are missed, then there will be a price to pay.
Just to throw out some numbers - the latest estimate of the number of people in the USA who have smoked pot is 97 million. The number of people who voted for Tyler Hicks to win American Idol was 63 million. The number of people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 was 59 million.
tornado
New member
Aargh said:
First, it's Taylor Hicks, and second, lots of people voted more than one time as there was no limit on the number of times a caller could call in to vote for American Idol.
But if something common is accepted and normal, then 85% of all the people in the world suffer some degree of tooth decay. Does that define it as normal and so don't bother to treat?
I believe a society should control use of mind altering drugs no matter how commonly they are used.
I checked with a legal expert, and as far as I can tell, testing positive for marijuana is not a crime. Not in Illinois or any state.
It is only illegal if you are caught in possession of the substance. So people who are saying Ray broke some law, or that he is lucky to get off without legal charges, are not correct.
By the way, I know someone who does testing for employers. They test hundreds of prospective and current employees who know they will be tested, and they know when the tests will come. Still, they find that several percent of the tests are positive, mostly for marijuana.
One of the reasons so many test positive is that even if you stay clean, the residuals of marijuana stay in your system for up to a couple months. I have even read that you can show a slightly positive test from passive breathing around a pot user.
It is only illegal if you are caught in possession of the substance. So people who are saying Ray broke some law, or that he is lucky to get off without legal charges, are not correct.
By the way, I know someone who does testing for employers. They test hundreds of prospective and current employees who know they will be tested, and they know when the tests will come. Still, they find that several percent of the tests are positive, mostly for marijuana.
One of the reasons so many test positive is that even if you stay clean, the residuals of marijuana stay in your system for up to a couple months. I have even read that you can show a slightly positive test from passive breathing around a pot user.
MacabreMob
New member
BobbyG said:
Interesting points brought up early on. But the final statement, IMO, may cause you to lose a lot of credibility. You better provide links for stuff for like that - "passive breathing around a pot user".
You want to say being in a room full of users and you are hanging out while they smoke away the hills.. then maybe. You wanna say, hanging out in the back yard while a couple goes behind the barn for a little 'meeting' and you just happen upon them for a conversation... doubt it.
My point then is... if you are hanging out with friends in a room thick enough to fail a whiz-quiz, then you are hanging with the wrong type of friends.
Macab-
BobbyG is technically right. It has been shown that passive inhalation can show slightly positive test results. But testing for marijuana differs from testing for other drugs like cocaine. There is a threshhold level where low levels are not considered a positive test. That usually eliminates the problem with passive absorption.
I tried to find references, and most refer to how they have adjusted the allowable limits to try to avoid this problem, but it is definitely possible to "show a slightly positive test from passive breathing around a pot user."
But you are also correct, that it isn't going to happen from casual exposure.
http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugtestcan.htm (see section 4.2)
http://cannabis.net/testing/passive-smoking.html
BobbyG is technically right. It has been shown that passive inhalation can show slightly positive test results. But testing for marijuana differs from testing for other drugs like cocaine. There is a threshhold level where low levels are not considered a positive test. That usually eliminates the problem with passive absorption.
I tried to find references, and most refer to how they have adjusted the allowable limits to try to avoid this problem, but it is definitely possible to "show a slightly positive test from passive breathing around a pot user."
But you are also correct, that it isn't going to happen from casual exposure.
http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugtestcan.htm (see section 4.2)
http://cannabis.net/testing/passive-smoking.html
DannyCooksey
New member
I was gone most of the weekend and just saw this. This is a tough break and I feel for you guys. I understand the concern with people rubbing it in and I can speak for the vast majority of Redbird fans by saying you won't get it from us.
We know what losing a player or two is like and I for one of many have empathy for you guys. It sucks it really does and to be honest, I don't see what Ray Brown did as a "big deal". I understand it's illegal, but this is not nearly as bad as say Luther Head and his ring of thugs breaking and entering off-campus apartments and stealing computers, etc. That loser only got suspended for 3 games in non-conference. Brown's crime is far less severe in my book.
Anyway, not here to rub it in at all. That's not cool and not my style. I hope the young man will rebound and have 2 solid years in Peoria. I think you guys will be able to circle the wagons and get past it as a program. Keep the faith.
tornado
New member
My guess (educated vs. uneducated) is that in both graphs, the category is supposed to be "Protocol Issues", or violations that weren't due to a positive test, but due to a violation of a protocol (such as providing enough urine of proper temperature, etc) or showing up on time.
If you have ever taken an official drug test through an employer, some tests are considered a violation is you just fail to comply with protocol .....an example would be someone caught using a "Whizzinator".
But believe it or not, any urine specimen provided MUST be of sufficient temperature, concentration, etc. to guarantee it is your real urine and not some fake sample you carried in or diluted with tapwater.
Those violations would likely be called "Protocol Issues".
(I suspect the term "Protocol Drugs" is in error and should have been "Protocol Issues" as it is in the lower graph.)
If you have ever taken an official drug test through an employer, some tests are considered a violation is you just fail to comply with protocol .....an example would be someone caught using a "Whizzinator".
But believe it or not, any urine specimen provided MUST be of sufficient temperature, concentration, etc. to guarantee it is your real urine and not some fake sample you carried in or diluted with tapwater.
Those violations would likely be called "Protocol Issues".
(I suspect the term "Protocol Drugs" is in error and should have been "Protocol Issues" as it is in the lower graph.)
V
VromanFan
Guest
BobbyG said:
Boy so much of that is incorrect I don't know where to start. Lets try:
1. Cannabis stays in the system longer than most other narcotics. The general consensus though is it won't show up on a test after 30 days at the longest. I have never ever heard of a person testing positive from cannabis use for a "couple of months" like you state. I'll post some links if I can find them.
2. Well that's an interesting story from your friend. People test positive on those tests because they smoke weed. People are stupid.
3. Your "legal expert" is correct. Having cannabis in your system in not a crime. BUT, possession of cannabis is illegal. Of course Ray Brown broke the law. It is INCORRECT to state that it is only illegal to be CAUGHT with it. He broke the law when he possessed on his person the cannabis before he ingested it. He just didn't get caught. If I kill my boss and get away with it I still committed a crime. So did Ray. This is a logical, reasonable conclusion to draw because he tested positive for it. There is no other RATIONAL explanation for it being in his system OTHER than he once was in possession of it. Could he be tried in a court of law and proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No, the evidence of a positive test is not enough. But the NCAA is not held to such a standard. Neither am I. I'm not stupid. I know he broke the law.
I'll send some links if I can later today.
EDIT: I meant Ray broke the law. Not that he killed anyone. You understand what I meant.
tornado
New member
VromanFan said:
----(1)--VromanFan, here are a couple links that state what is
known medically, that marijuana CAN BE detectable in your
system up to 2 or 3 months after you last used it. That's
because it is highly fat-soluable and gradually leeches out of the
fat spaces of your body. If you are very fat (more than 50% of
your body weight being fat) then you can store a lot of
marijuana dissolved in those spaces and still test positive to a
low level months later. I am not the only one saying this, as
even the experts also agree.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...tays+in+your+system"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
AND this page states:
"For chronic drug users, drugs (other than alcohol) can be
retained in the system much longer by the chronic-user after
their last use. For instance, marijuana and PCP can be detected
for up to 60-90 days after lengthy, heavy-use periods of
use."
http://www.ohsinc.com/how_long_do_drugs_stay_in_your_system.htm
----(2)--again, this is wrong, and I can prove it.
Here is a scientific study on passive inhalation of marijuana --
just breathing what others exhaled in the room, and it resulted in
"urinary excretion of significant amounts of cannabinoid metabolites"
Thus is is MOST CERTAINLY possible to test positive without
possessing the drug.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3037193&dopt=Abstract
----(3)--This statement of yours is flat out wrong. There are a
number of reported cases of people being given food, brownies,
or whatever, and tricked by not being told they contained
marijuana. In such a case, the person who is tricked would test
positive and has absolutely BROKEN NO LAW WHATSOEVER.
Tell me, did these kids who were poisoned at school just a
couple months ago commit a crime? They certainly would have
failed a drug test.
I agree most people with drugs in their system took them
voluntarily, but NOT ALL.
http://www.dailyhome.com/news/2006/dh-talladegacounty-0210-acasciaro-6b09v1936.htm
MacabreMob
New member
tornado said:
This is my beef with this 'passive inhalation' thing... From the article:
1) Passive smoke exposure was conducted in a small, unventilated room
2) passively exposed to the sidestream smoke of 4 and 16 marijuana cigarettes for 1 h each day for 6 consecutive days
Results - The studies show that significant amounts of THC were absorbed by all subjects at the higher level of passive smoke exposure
But then...
"However, it seems improbable that subjects would unknowingly tolerate the noxious smoke conditions produced by this exposure"
Furthermore...
"At the lower level of passive marijuana-smoke exposure, specimens tested positive only infrequently or were negative"
tornado
New member
Mac-
Marijuana is the only drug on the NCAA list which has to exceed a certain level before you are considered positive.
All other drugs, you're considered positive with even the tiniest trace.
The reason is because the NCAA and those who guide their policies do know that a person can test positive with passive exposure, and they actually make that allowance by requiring the amount in the urine be high enough to guarantee that the positive tests are from personal use not passive use.
That scientific study argues that it is certainly possible to test positve by passive use if you live in a house where someone else is smoking a lot.
The statement you quoted about "unknowingly", is not even relevant here, since passive use whether knowingly or unknowingly is not a violation.
The test subjects spent only ONE HOUR each day for only 6 days before they all tested positive for "significant levels" in the urine.
I contend it is very possible to get that kind of exposure while in school at a college such as BU. All it would take is to spend an hour in a room that 4 people are smoking, and the test proves that would do it.
Marijuana is the only drug on the NCAA list which has to exceed a certain level before you are considered positive.
All other drugs, you're considered positive with even the tiniest trace.
The reason is because the NCAA and those who guide their policies do know that a person can test positive with passive exposure, and they actually make that allowance by requiring the amount in the urine be high enough to guarantee that the positive tests are from personal use not passive use.
That scientific study argues that it is certainly possible to test positve by passive use if you live in a house where someone else is smoking a lot.
The statement you quoted about "unknowingly", is not even relevant here, since passive use whether knowingly or unknowingly is not a violation.
The test subjects spent only ONE HOUR each day for only 6 days before they all tested positive for "significant levels" in the urine.
I contend it is very possible to get that kind of exposure while in school at a college such as BU. All it would take is to spend an hour in a room that 4 people are smoking, and the test proves that would do it.
V
VromanFan
Guest
tornado said:
Tornado,
You bring up some valid points. True- somebody can have cannabis in their system with knowingly possessing it. Maybe I should have been more clear in my earlier post. Ray Brown broke the law when he had the cannabis in his possession before he ingested it. We know this because he admitted so doing in the PJStar article. So it would be more accurate to say that somebody who has cannabis in their system, but didn't knowingly ingest it, committed no crime. As we know from his quotes, this is not what happened to RB.
I was responding to a specific post written earlier. They were saying there was no indication RAY BROWN broke the law. It was asked above: "So people who are saying Ray broke some law, or that he is lucky to get off without legal charges, are not correct." I quoted his post and tried to explain why that statement was incorrect. It was not meant to be a general statement of the law. I think our posts are not inconsistent because we were kind of talking about different subjects. I was absolutly not "flat out wrong." On that point anyway.
As for the testing...those links may certainly be correct. I deal with drug users and drug tests literally every workday. I have never seen anyone test positive for cannabis after being locked up for 4 weeks at the longest. I'm sure there's exceptions, and maybe the tests we use aren't the greatest.
I'm sure 2nd hand pot smoke can get in your system. It would have to be one wild party I bet.
Cheers,
VromanFan