'12 PA DE Noah Spence (Ohio State Verbal)

[RuntheBall]

Does he know Starks?

 

[irish o'phile]

I don't buy it. He likely intentionally took it.

I work in a profession in which I deal with on-demand urinalysis results on a daily basis. When results come back positive, I inevitably hear people say one of the following:

1. You must have mixed up the results
2. Your test is faulty...there is no way
3. Someone around me was using and the positive test must be from second hand exposure
4. I must have tested positive because I took [insert name of whatever over the counter drug]
5. Someone slipped it in my drink

I think "someone slipped it in my drink" is the most laughable excuse. I have much more respect for someone owning their use. He is in college and could have simply deferred to his youth and the environment. Now I will always assume he is full of it.

 

[Kak7304]

Family also threatening to sue the B1G.

 

[irish o'phile]

Family also threatening to sue the B1G.

Kind of Lance Armstrongish. He was positive. He broke a rule. He now has his excuse, there is no accountability, and a threatened retaliation.

In the article, his family is "shocked" that he was positive. How could he be "shocked" that he was positive? If someone slipped ecstasy in your drink, you would know that you were high on something after it kicked in.

 

[Booslum31]

I don't buy it. He likely intentionally took it.

I work in a profession in which I deal with on-demand urinalysis results on a daily basis. When results come back positive, I inevitably hear people say one of the following:

1. You must have mixed up the results
2. Your test is faulty...there is no way
3. Someone around me was using and the positive test must be from second hand exposure
4. I must have tested positive because I took [insert name of whatever over the counter drug]
5. Someone slipped it in my drink

I think "someone slipped it in my drink" is the most laughable excuse. I have much more respect for someone owning their use. He is in college and could have simply deferred to his youth and the environment. Now I will always assume he is full of it.

I actually work for a national Toxicology Reference lab (where these samples are sent). We are asked frequently to "re-test" a sample because someone is going ape-shit after hearing they tested positive. The louder i yell the more innocent i must be! In the five years I've been doing this we have never once got a different result than we did on the first pass. If the test was positive...it was in your system.

 

[connor_in]

So let's see here, he tests positive,gets a year suspension, appeals, gets 75% of it to go away...and is still planning to sue for something he cannot prove?

 

[SaltyND24]

What's nutty is that the NCAA considers it a street drug which is only punishable with a 3 game suspension...STREET DRUG! That's quite the deterrent I must say

 

[Cackalacky]

I actually work for a national Toxicology Reference lab (where these samples are sent). We are asked frequently to "re-test" a sample because someone is going ape-shit after hearing they tested positive. The louder i yell the more innocent i must be! In the five years I've been doing this we have never once got a different result than we did on the first pass. If the test was positive...it was in your system.

Any chance you can test michigan's players...

 

[IrishGlory]

I actually work for a national Toxicology Reference lab (where these samples are sent). We are asked frequently to "re-test" a sample because someone is going ape-shit after hearing they tested positive. The louder i yell the more innocent i must be! In the five years I've been doing this we have never once got a different result than we did on the first pass. If the test was positive...it was in your system.

I am a certified Wicklander Zulawski interviewer and this is one of the biggest indicators of deception. Typically when someone is guilty of something, they know it when the question is asked, thus prepared to deny and the inital denial is strong, which is an attempt to make the interviewer believe in their innocence.

On the flipside, when you accuse an innocent person of something, they are not expecting the accusation and their initial reaction is typically one of shock and confusion, thus the initial denial is weak. The more you accuse an innocent person of wrongdoing, they stronger the denial gets. The longer you accuse a guilty person, the weaker their denial gets.

 

[PANDFAN]

I am a certified Wicklander Zulawski interviewer and this is one of the biggest indicators of deception. Typically when someone is guilty of something, they know it when the question is asked, thus prepared to deny and the inital denial is strong, which is an attempt to make the interviewer believe in their innocence.

On the flipside, when you accuse an innocent person of something, they are not expecting the accusation and their initial reaction is typically one of shock and confusion, thus the initial denial is weak. The more you accuse an innocent person of wrongdoing, they stronger the denial gets. The longer you accuse a guilty person, the weaker their denial gets.

you watched too many lie to me episodes

 

[Cackalacky]

you watched too many lie to me episodes

Great show. Loved it.

 

[greyhammer90]

What's nutty is that the NCAA considers it a street drug which is only punishable with a 3 game suspension...STREET DRUG! That's quite the deterrent I must say

What else would ecstasy be? It's usually sold by weed dealers.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

What else would ecstasy be? It's usually sold by weed dealers.

And oxycontin dealers

 

[Andy in Sactown]

I don't buy it. He likely intentionally took it.

I work in a profession in which I deal with on-demand urinalysis results on a daily basis. When results come back positive, I inevitably hear people say one of the following:

1. You must have mixed up the results
2. Your test is faulty...there is no way
3. Someone around me was using and the positive test must be from second hand exposure
4. I must have tested positive because I took [insert name of whatever over the counter drug]
5. Someone slipped it in my drink

I think "someone slipped it in my drink" is the most laughable excuse. I have much more respect for someone owning their use. He is in college and could have simply deferred to his youth and the environment. Now I will always assume he is full of it.

Kind of Lance Armstrongish. He was positive. He broke a rule. He now has his excuse, there is no accountability, and a threatened retaliation.

In the article, his family is "shocked" that he was positive. How could he be "shocked" that he was positive? If someone slipped ecstasy in your drink, you would know that you were high on something after it kicked in.

Toward the end of my time in the U.S. Navy, I was part of a division responsible for urinalysis for my command. As you can imagine the military is pretty strict in terms of there being a no tolerance policy toward drugs. I've heard the "slipped something in my drink" excuse more times than any other excuse, but if the first we're hearing about it is when you pop positive on a test, you're done.

On the other hand, if someone is actually, genuinely drugged by a third party, and as soon as you notice you're on something you call the command and notify them, they'll take you to the hospital, have someone stay with you (who will be happy to mess with you; in a good way) and you'll get a free pass and probably a couple days off.

Whenever someone tried the "slipped" excuse. The first thing we'd say is, "why didn't you self-report when you first knew you had been given something". Never heard an answer for that head-scratcher that didn't obliterate any doubt that the person has used intentionally. I'd imagine that's the basis of denying an appeal, since presumably he didn't self-report since he was caught from a mandatory urinalysis for the B1G Championship Game.

I am a certified Wicklander Zulawski interviewer and this is one of the biggest indicators of deception. Typically when someone is guilty of something, they know it when the question is asked, thus prepared to deny and the inital denial is strong, which is an attempt to make the interviewer believe in their innocence.

On the flipside, when you accuse an innocent person of something, they are not expecting the accusation and their initial reaction is typically one of shock and confusion, thus the initial denial is weak. The more you accuse an innocent person of wrongdoing, they stronger the denial gets. The longer you accuse a guilty person, the weaker their denial gets.

Good stuff! And oh, so very much true.

 

[NDhoosier]

If I have learned one thing in my job, is that anything can happen in the court room. Does not matter if it makes sense or not. It all depends on how the lawyer plays the game.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

Toward the end of my time in the U.S. Navy, I was part of a division responsible for urinalysis for my command. As you can imagine the military is pretty strict in terms of there being a no tolerance policy toward drugs. I've heard the "slipped something in my drink" excuse more times than any other excuse, but if the first we're hearing about it is when you pop positive on a test, you're done.

On the other hand, if someone is actually, genuinely drugged by a third party, and as soon as you notice you're on something you call the command and notify them, they'll take you to the hospital, have someone stay with you (who will be happy to mess with you; in a good way) and you'll get a free pass and probably a couple days off.

Whenever someone tried the "slipped" excuse. The first thing we'd say is, "why didn't you self-report when you first knew you had been given something". Never heard an answer for that head-scratcher that didn't obliterate any doubt that the person has used intentionally. I'd imagine that's the basis of denying an appeal, since presumably he didn't self-report since he was caught from a mandatory urinalysis for the B1G Championship Game.

Good stuff! And oh, so very much true.

For what it's worth, with ecstasy, in low doses there's a good chance you might not know you've been slipped it, particularly if you've been drinking at the time. The sensation isn't outside of the normal human experience, you just feel really good. You can just remember having a particularly good night without anything being out of the ordinary. It's not like tested positive or LSD, which you would certainly realize you were.

Not to say that I necessarily believe him.

 

[aubeirish]

I don't buy it. He likely intentionally took it.

I work in a profession in which I deal with on-demand urinalysis results on a daily basis. When results come back positive, I inevitably hear people say one of the following:

1. You must have mixed up the results
2. Your test is faulty...there is no way
3. Someone around me was using and the positive test must be from second hand exposure
4. I must have tested positive because I took [insert name of whatever over the counter drug]
5. Someone slipped it in my drink

I think "someone slipped it in my drink" is the most laughable excuse. I have much more respect for someone owning their use. He is in college and could have simply deferred to his youth and the environment. Now I will always assume he is full of it.

LOL. I used that once back when I worked in a factory. Worked like a charm.

 

[ACamp1900]

I actually work for a national Toxicology Reference lab (where these samples are sent). We are asked frequently to "re-test" a sample because someone is going ape-shit after hearing they tested positive. The louder i yell the more innocent i must be! In the five years I've been doing this we have never once got a different result than we did on the first pass. If the test was positive...it was in your system.

Law school 101, if you have the facts, pound the facts... If you don't, pound the table.

 

[SaltyND24]

What else would ecstasy be? It's usually sold by weed dealers.

my point was that, for me personally, I would find it more forgivable to "mistakenly" take a performance enhancer or supplement, not knowing that what's in it would be against the rules (ex. over the counter supplement that has an ingredient that none of these guys could spell or pronounce, nor know exactly what it does) than something labeled as a street drug...I guess what I don't get is:

Big Ten says: It's a "performance enhancer"...your penalty is a year suspension

NCAA says: It's a "street drug" your penalty is only 3 games...

It's like with the NFL, 1st offense for illegal/performance enhancing drug is what? 4 games? I feel that the NCAA if they want to really deter the behavior should increase the suspension for drug use to send the message home...I know ecstasy is a street drug...Like other have said on here, self-report...Might make yourself seem a little more credible once/if that test comes back positive

 

[aubeirish]

my point was that, for me personally, I would find it more forgivable to "mistakenly" take a performance enhancer or supplement, not knowing that what's in it would be against the rules (ex. over the counter supplement that has an ingredient that none of these guys could spell or pronounce, nor know exactly what it does) than something labeled as a street drug...I guess what I don't get is:

Big Ten says: It's a "performance enhancer"...your penalty is a year suspension

NCAA says: It's a "street drug" your penalty is only 3 games...

It's like with the NFL, 1st offense for illegal/performance enhancing drug is what? 4 games? I feel that the NCAA if they want to really deter the behavior should increase the suspension for drug use to send the message home...I know ecstasy is a street drug...Like other have said on here, self-report...Might make yourself seem a little more credible once/if that test comes back positive

As far as the NCAA is concerned, performance enhancing drugs is a way more serious offense because your cheating to win in their league. The other drug is non-issue to them, aside from the bad publicity it brings, because it does not help performance. The issue should be strictly a university matter. This is where you see which universities has integrity or not. Just my opinion.

 

[Andy in Sactown]

For what it's worth, with ecstasy, in low doses there's a good chance you might not know you've been slipped it, particularly if you've been drinking at the time. The sensation isn't outside of the normal human experience, you just feel really good. You can just remember having a particularly good night without anything being out of the ordinary. It's not like tested positive or LSD, which you would certainly realize you were.

Not to say that I necessarily believe him.

Have you used MDMA? I find your argument suspect. Low doses? Seems rather hypothetical and contrary to the way MDMA is usually packaged (See: Nathan Sparks thread; I wrote a pretty detailed response there-- house guests are here or else I'd look for you).

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

Have you used MDMA? I find your argument suspect. Low doses? Seems rather hypothetical and contrary to the way MDMA is usually packaged (See: Nathan Sparks thread; I wrote a pretty detailed response there-- house guests are here or else I'd look for you).

I won't confirm or deny weather or not I've used it before, but in reality MDMA is one of the more benign drugs out there. There is minimal risk of overdose, physical dependency, or long term damage to the brain or body unless significantly abused. Pretty much the only real danger in the short term or secondary effects, such as dehydration and hyperthermia from dancing too much. The impacts on your brain of a night of heavy drinking are worse than a night of moderate MDMA use.

MDMA is now typically packaged as "molly", which is a powder, rather than a pill form that most people associate with "ecstasy". It is very possible that someone slipped some powder into his drink. At low doses, he may have felt just very good, but not suspiciously so. The way to think about it is the difference in how you feel between going out in a shitty mood and going out in a good mood.

 

[SaltyND24]

As far as the NCAA is concerned, performance enhancing drugs is a way more serious offense because your cheating to win in their league. The other drug is non-issue to them, aside from the bad publicity it brings, because it does not help performance. The issue should be strictly a university matter. This is where you see which universities has integrity or not. Just my opinion.

I feel where you're coming from...

 

[pkt77242]

I won't confirm or deny weather or not I've used it before, but in reality MDMA is one of the more benign drugs out there. There is minimal risk of overdose, physical dependency, or long term damage to the brain or body unless significantly abused. Pretty much the only real danger in the short term or secondary effects, such as dehydration and hyperthermia from dancing too much. The impacts on your brain of a night of heavy drinking are worse than a night of moderate MDMA use.

MDMA is now typically packaged as "molly", which is a powder, rather than a pill form that most people associate with "ecstasy". It is very possible that someone slipped some powder into his drink. At low doses, he may have felt just very good, but not suspiciously so. The way to think about it is the difference in how you feel between going out in a shitty mood and going out in a good mood.

Studies have found that it affects memory in as little as 10 pills over a year period. What is your definition of "Significant abuse"?

 

[irishog77]

my point was that, for me personally, I would find it more forgivable to "mistakenly" take a performance enhancer or supplement, not knowing that what's in it would be against the rules (ex. over the counter supplement that has an ingredient that none of these guys could spell or pronounce, nor know exactly what it does) than something labeled as a street drug...I guess what I don't get is:

Big Ten says: It's a "performance enhancer"...your penalty is a year suspension

NCAA says: It's a "street drug" your penalty is only 3 games...

It's like with the NFL, 1st offense for illegal/performance enhancing drug is what? 4 games? I feel that the NCAA if they want to really deter the behavior should increase the suspension for drug use to send the message home...I know ecstasy is a street drug...Like other have said on here, self-report...Might make yourself seem a little more credible once/if that test comes back positive

As far as the NCAA is concerned, performance enhancing drugs is a way more serious offense because your cheating to win in their league. The other drug is non-issue to them, aside from the bad publicity it brings, because it does not help performance. The issue should be strictly a university matter. This is where you see which universities has integrity or not. Just my opinion.

It is kind of a strange situation.

Drink a milkshake that has something found in some South American yak's ball sack-- 1 year ban.

Shoot up heroin--meh, 3 games.

 

[Irishnuke]

Come on guys. Clearly it was a rapist who slipped what he thought was a roofie in Noah's drink. Or maybe it was a Michigan player. Or maybe it was both!

 

[Huntr]

Spence pissed hot again.

He can appeal punishment from this incident, but 2nd time is perma ban from B1G.


lolol

 

[WestCoast]

Spence pissed hot again.

He whizzed on an electric fence?

 

[tko]

He's the victim.

 

[johnnycando]

He's the victim.

Life be trife yo.