Jump to content


Wan'Dale Robinson cited for possession of marijuana


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

Still confused as to why everyone is turning this into a legalize weed issue.  Last time I checked weed isn’t allowed in the NCAA or NFL.

 

You can debate all you want, but his “possession” means he’s likely violating NCAA rules.

 

Me before team for both him and Washington.  I’d sit em both the first 4 games.

 

Cant wait for the eyerolls

 

One from me, for sure, for assuming these two players are selfish based on the limited information you have.  And, four games?  Bit excessive, don’t you think?  Not saying there shoudn’t be some reprimand, but four games?!

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

48 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

If you go 65 in a 45, but you don’t get pulled over did you violate the law?

 

 

No one's questioning whether he broke the law. It's perfectly reasonable to think the law is stupid, though. It's also reasonable to expect the players to be smart enough to either not do it or not get caught, so I expect he'll get punished. I just find it unlikely he'll get suspended for any games.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scarlet Overkill said:

 

One from me, for sure, for assuming these two players are selfish based on the limited information you have.  And, four games?  Bit excessive, don’t you think?  Not saying there shoudn’t be some reprimand, but four games?!

My mind could be changed.  I just grow tired of meaningless suspensions for the first half of the first game.

 

How about the entire team does stadium stairs X amount of times?  Be the same if a player gets suspended...you’re screwing your teammates.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, gobiggergoredder said:

My mind could be changed.  I just grow tired of meaningless suspensions for the first half of the first game.

 

 

What's the purpose of a suspension?


I imagine one would be so the person stops the behavior, and two would be to send a message to other people. But we've had examples with this same thing where the player wasn't suspended and the behavior wasn't repeated, e.g. Stanley Morgan Jr.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

What's the purpose of a suspension?


I imagine one would be so the person stops the behavior, and two would be to send a message to other people. But we've had examples with this same thing where the player wasn't suspended and the behavior wasn't repeated, e.g. Stanley Morgan Jr.

 

We can do that all day both ways.  Bandares stopped stealing bikes too.

 

A few days ago a similar situation happened to another high profile player.  Is there a problem?  I have no idea.  But I think you’d want to make sure there isn’t one.

Link to comment

6 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

We can do that all day both ways.  Bandares stopped stealing bikes too.

 

A few days ago a similar situation happened to another high profile player.  Is there a problem?  I have no idea.  But I think you’d want to make sure there isn’t one.

 

 

Yes, he did. I'm not sure what your point is. I don't remember if Banderas was suspended, but seeing as he didn't steal again whatever the punishment was must have worked.

Suspending players for a minor infraction (like Robinson's) is overkill. What Banderas did was worse.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yes, he did. I'm not sure what your point is. I don't remember if Banderas was suspended, but seeing as he didn't steal again whatever the punishment was must have worked.

I’m not sure what your point is.....

 

you pick one one player and say “See, this is what you do”.  

 

Im tapping out.  At this point My original post has as many +1s as I do eyerolls, so I must not be totally in left field.  

 

GBR

Link to comment
2 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

At this point My original post has as many +1s as I do eyerolls, so I must not be totally in left field.

 

 

A lot of people still have misguided opinions on marijuana so they'll +1 anyone who wants to punish people harshly if their infraction was related to marijuana.

  • Plus1 3
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

A lot of people who still have misguided opinions on marijuana so they'll +1 anyone who wants to punish people harshly if their infraction was related to marijuana.

So I lied...no tap out yet.

 

i could care less if smoked weed or stole a car.  I certainly can’t speak for those that agree with me, but I’d venture to say most are the same.

 

This program has a culture problem and it has for a while.  I think it’s fair for people to show concern over behaviors that could perceived a chinks in the armor.

 

1.  A player is currently facing charges in California for some odd sexting thing (I’m on record saying I think this is bogus).  What really bothers me is that he still has that cloud over his head and then he puts himself in another poor situation.

2.  A second player only a few days later makes a similar mistake.

 

These are two high profile players and they are looked up to by both teammates and fans.  If they are allowed to slip others will follow and that’s how your culture is determined.

 

im not the morality police.  I don’t make the rules and I don’t care what you do.  But your thoughts on marijuana use are irrelevant when it comes the law and ncaa rules.

 

Just a few months removed from getting worked by Iowa and missing a bowl game, two potential starters have weed issues to deal with.  Not where I’d want to be just a few weeks from fall camp.  That being said, it may be a good catalyst to set the tone for the rest of the summer.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

8 hours ago, Ulty said:

 

Funny how everyone is saying poor education, and why they shouldn’t have consented to a search, etc. The law states police can search vehicles on campus and at high schools practically whenever they want. All they need is reasonable suspicion, which is a lot less of a burden to prove than probable cause. It is basically a hunch. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Bad2theBONES said:

 

Funny how everyone is saying poor education, and why they shouldn’t have consented to a search, etc. The law states police can search vehicles on campus and at high schools practically whenever they want. All they need is reasonable suspicion, which is a lot less of a burden to prove than probable cause. It is basically a hunch. 

.... 

 

1) I'd like to see a link to where the probable cause for search and seizure is lessened on campus compared to the general public. I searched and struggled. 

2) The appropriate answer to the kind officer is still "No.", "No thank you", or "Nah". 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Atbone95 said:

.... 

 

1) I'd like to see a link to where the probable cause for search and seizure is lessened on campus compared to the general public. I searched and struggled. 

2) The appropriate answer to the kind officer is still "No.", "No thank you", or "Nah". 

 

I've listened to quite a few presentations on this topic, although they've all been looking at a K-12 school setting.  I have no idea if the same applies to post-secondary public schools but it would make sense that it would.

 

The Supreme Court case that set forth the "reasonable suspicion" standard for school investigation - as opposed to "probable cause" in the legal world - is New Jersey vs. T.L.O.  There is a quick overview here:

 

Quote

Decision Date: January 15, 1985

 

Background
In a New Jersey high school, a teacher found two girls smoking in the bathroom and took them to the principal's office. One girl admitted to smoking but the other, known as T.L.O., denied it. The principal demanded to see the girl's purse and found evidence that she was also selling marijuana at school. T.L.O. was taken to the police station where she admitted to selling marijuana. Based on her confession and the evidence in her purse, the state of New Jersey brought charges against her. In a juvenile court, T.L.O. argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated. The court sided with the school, and T.L.O. took her case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which later found that the search was unreasonable and the evidence could not be used. The state of New Jersey appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

 

Decision
In 1985, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3  margin, ruled that New Jersey and the school had met a "reasonableness" standard for conducting such searches at school. The high court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school.

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, gobiggergoredder said:

So I lied...no tap out yet.

 

i could care less if smoked weed or stole a car.  I certainly can’t speak for those that agree with me, but I’d venture to say most are the same.

 

This program has a culture problem and it has for a while.  I think it’s fair for people to show concern over behaviors that could perceived a chinks in the armor.

 

1.  A player is currently facing charges in California for some odd sexting thing (I’m on record saying I think this is bogus).  What really bothers me is that he still has that cloud over his head and then he puts himself in another poor situation.

2.  A second player only a few days later makes a similar mistake.

 

These are two high profile players and they are looked up to by both teammates and fans.  If they are allowed to slip others will follow and that’s how your culture is determined.

 

im not the morality police.  I don’t make the rules and I don’t care what you do.  But your thoughts on marijuana use are irrelevant when it comes the law and ncaa rules.

 

Just a few months removed from getting worked by Iowa and missing a bowl game, two potential starters have weed issues to deal with.  Not where I’d want to be just a few weeks from fall camp.  That being said, it may be a good catalyst to set the tone for the rest of the summer.

 

 

You mean couldn't care less, and stealing a car shows a lot worse character flaws than smoking weed. I would care if one of our players stole a car. That would warrant multiple game suspensions in my opinion.

 

The charges against Washington are also far more serious than smoking weed, and I don't think they're bogus; they're just not as bad as the headlines. If he's found guilty of any of it I assume he'll be suspended for at least a game or 2.

What you've stated about NCAA rules in this topic has been wrong and several people have told you this. As far as the law goes, it's always going to be discussed when something like this comes up. And no crap, what people think at the moment about the law has no bearing on what legal punishment someone gets for disobeying it. This is a message board, however, and people are going to discuss it.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...