Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trouble in Vermillion

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #31
    Re: Trouble in Vermillion

    I guess regarding the specific legal issues . . . I'm not moving off of "wait and see."
    "I think we'll be OK"

    Comment

    • #32
      Re: Trouble in Vermillion

      Originally posted by jakejc795 View Post

      Clark and Slade were suspended for use (demonstrated by failed drug tests) rather than possession, correct? Slight distinction, but one would involve criminal offense, while the other a violation of team/NCAA rules.
      And Clark is no longer on the team for not living up to expectations placed upon after he was suspended.

      Comment

      • #33
        Re: Trouble in Vermillion

        Argus Leader now reporting (11.27.17) the new arrest (for second-degree rape) of Williamson relates back to an incident in March.

        Comment

        • #34
          Re: Trouble in Vermillion

          Originally posted by jakejc795 View Post
          The players taunting during last week's game is what I objected to, and as you allude to, pretty much all he could directly control.

          Clark and Slade were suspended for use (demonstrated by failed drug tests) rather than possession, correct? Slight distinction, but one would involve criminal offense, while the other a violation of team/NCAA rules.
          I don't know anything about the specifics of this case, and I am not a lawyer. However, possessing drugs within your blood stream is a crime in South Dakota, I believe.

          https://www.alternet.org/drugs/crazi...ing-smoked-pot
          “I used to be with it. But then they changed what it was. Now what I’m with isn’t it, and what’s it seems scary and wierd. It’ll happen to you.” — Abe Simpson

          Comment

          • #35
            Re: Trouble in Vermillion

            Since we are being Technical and all. The residual components of drugs can be traced in urine streams for quite some time as they are stored in the fatty tissues within the body. South Dakota's law addresses bloodstream not urine. Most drug tox screenings are done via urinalysis. So while you might be able to provide proof that someone had done drugs in the past couple of months that's not against the law in South Dakota as in you won't be arrested for it.

            My guess is the NCAA test and the school's test are not overly complex. (I might be way off on that) to clarify what I mean by that is I don't think the test used in the NCAA would have caught the blood doping that Lance Armstrong was doing heck even their tests which were looking for it had a hard time finding him.

            Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

            Comment

            • #36
              Re: Trouble in Vermillion

              Originally posted by SF_Rabbit_Fan View Post
              I don't know anything about the specifics of this case, and I am not a lawyer. However, possessing drugs within your blood stream is a crime in South Dakota, I believe.

              https://www.alternet.org/drugs/crazi...ing-smoked-pot
              How all the sudden did this topic turn to athletes using drugs? I thought we were talking about alleged rape. I must be missing something.

              Comment

              • #37
                Re: Trouble in Vermillion

                From today's (3/19/19) Argus Leader: Former University of South Dakota Football Player Get Probation in Rape Case.
                Williamson pleaded "no contest" to aggravated assault and got 10 years probation, credit for 96 days served. Near the end of the news story, it is reported Williamson may play football for Missouri Southern State University.

                Link to the Argus article:

                https://www.argusleader.com/story/ne...se/3173472002/

                Comment

                Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                Working...
                X