Because we want the NCAA to feel pressure to have a legitimate anti-doping policy.
The more attention their lax drug policies get the more likely they are to change. I'm going to require registration to post in this thread to cut down on VPN usage.
I guess it’s a campaign. Think of all the angles and benefits. Not attacking anyone but why have other situations like this involving possibe cheating garnered little attention?
The difference between this situation and others within the NCAA is that no one was willing to step up to the plate to try and get the job done, generally speaking since all you really see is people talking and no walking. From a literal sense, D3 is easily the worst division to try and snake your way into after a controversy like this one rooting from Iowa State. As we all saw very quickly with the petition and Rowan clean sport.
This post was edited 32 seconds after it was posted.
Sorry you got malmo'd. He hit me with that one too.
They nuked their own thread about the piece Gault wrote with no notice, and when someone started a new one they made a statement along the lines of (not a direct quote) "We stand by our reporting. We have no further comment at this time". Granted, that one had some comments that could intimate violence on the track so I get it (this was pre-nationals, so people were speculating protest actions). When the brojos started the thread they mentioned the article had gotten reviewed by legal but by the time it was approved it was late so they waited until the end of the weekend to post it. So at least they had their ducks in a row going into it. Not sure why they're handling this in this way - given the purport to want clean sport, and this thread is literally about an IG account named "Rowan Clean Sport"
Idk, feels weird to selectively nuke comments here, when there are threads way out of control that make this one look tame.
The moderateion is incredibly unjust and unfair. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I haven't been on this thread. Moderation is hard to do properly .
This is an international news story. People should be allowed to talk about it.
I'm on here now. What questions do people have?
Yes, after a threatened lawsuit, we deleted the other thread. This one popped up.
This is great. Not going away, no matter how many rowan sprinters ruin their reputations to defend a dude who is irreparably harming their program.
Side note, props to the Iowa program being able to keep this all under wraps. If I was a 20 year old who knew any details about this, theres no way I'd be able to keep my mouth shut lol
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
You have put yourself in the shoes of someone who is objective, reasonable, and wants clean sport. USADA establishes the national standard of anti-doping governance. For some reason the NCAA doesn't conform to these standards ie the absence of non-analytical testing, a complete lack of an investigative arm, shorter ban times, no specialized analyses, etc etc. Maybe a university openly flaunting this loophole is what it will take for the NCAA to make a change for the better.
The moderateion is incredibly unjust and unfair. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I haven't been on this thread. Moderation is hard to do properly .
This is an international news story. People should be allowed to talk about it.
I'm on here now. What questions do people have?
Yes, after a threatened lawsuit, we deleted the other thread. This one popped up.
Appreciate you chiming in and confirming a lawsuit was why the OG one got taken down. There's certainly been a fair bit of excrement slinging so some deletions were warranted, but there are pages where 95% of posts have just been getting nuked.
I hear ya on moderation being hard, but there's actual story content getting lost. Like I'm sure several people posted about Rowen responding to the ORPA saying they need until 4/10, but none of those comments made it through whichever moderator(s) have been going fire and brimstone.
I haven't been on this thread. Moderation is hard to do properly .
This is an international news story. People should be allowed to talk about it.
I'm on here now. What questions do people have?
Yes, after a threatened lawsuit, we deleted the other thread. This one popped up.
What are your thoughts on Rowan Clean Sport?
Obviously you may not be able to talk about the details of the lawsuit but do you think they could get hit with a similar one that LRC apparently got or was it for something completely different?
You have put yourself in the shoes of someone who is objective, reasonable, and wants clean sport. USADA establishes the national standard of anti-doping governance. For some reason the NCAA doesn't conform to these standards ie the absence of non-analytical testing, a complete lack of an investigative arm, shorter ban times, no specialized analyses, etc etc. Maybe a university openly flaunting this loophole is what it will take for the NCAA to make a change for the better.
I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how a more stringent testing regime could be implemented at the college level.
Look, I agree, the NCAA should do more—but what should that look like?
I think this thread is a perfect example of the complexities of this because it deals with D3, not D1 or even D2.
Testing is costly. Are they doing random testing at all sanctioned meets? If so, the costs of meets will skyrocket. That reduces access. Only testing at a few more high-profile meets? I mean, nationals of course, and maybe any regionals, maybe something else, too?
Then there is the issue with the claims regarding Clevenger here. Competition testing very well might not catch someone doing some EPO or peptides if they time it well. So, does that mean there would be a testing pool a la World Athletics' testing pool? (Some NCAA kids are already in that pool, sure, but not all—and not Clevenger.)
So, I agree, there needs to be more anti-doping regulation and testing, but I do think it is interesting trying to sort out what that would look like.
Also, if anyone has ever put on a track meet, road race, or trail race and sought to get it (1) insured, (2) certified, and/or (3) sanctioned, that already can get costly. There are levels of sanctioning, too, where testing is not required but for a situation where a record may be set. (My understanding, and I haven't had to go too far into this yet, is that you can set up a testing option *if* a record is possibly done AND you wish it to be certifiable, which is a whole process.)
Imagine all these small D3 schools putting on meets having to go through this process—it could have a real impact unless there is more support from the NCAA, USADA, and/or USATF.
So, what should an improved anti-doping testing regime look like?
It doesn't answer your testing question, and given the scale and size, this is a bit apples to oranges. But NCAA ski races are almost all (maybe all of them) sanctioned by FIS which automatically requires all athletes to adhere to WADA. Some in the thread have talked about eliminating a similar loophole in xc/track where athletes don't have to be USATF members.
Again, it's apples to oranges because there are just so many more track/xc meets than there are ski races, but NCAA wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel here if they didn't want to. If you want to ski in a college race, you have to adhere to FIS rules, which means WADA.
You have put yourself in the shoes of someone who is objective, reasonable, and wants clean sport. USADA establishes the national standard of anti-doping governance. For some reason the NCAA doesn't conform to these standards ie the absence of non-analytical testing, a complete lack of an investigative arm, shorter ban times, no specialized analyses, etc etc. Maybe a university openly flaunting this loophole is what it will take for the NCAA to make a change for the better.
I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how a more stringent testing regime could be implemented at the college level.
Look, I agree, the NCAA should do more—but what should that look like?
I think this thread is a perfect example of the complexities of this because it deals with D3, not D1 or even D2.
Testing is costly. Are they doing random testing at all sanctioned meets? If so, the costs of meets will skyrocket. That reduces access. Only testing at a few more high-profile meets? I mean, nationals of course, and maybe any regionals, maybe something else, too?
Then there is the issue with the claims regarding Clevenger here. Competition testing very well might not catch someone doing some EPO or peptides if they time it well. So, does that mean there would be a testing pool a la World Athletics' testing pool? (Some NCAA kids are already in that pool, sure, but not all—and not Clevenger.)
So, I agree, there needs to be more anti-doping regulation and testing, but I do think it is interesting trying to sort out what that would look like.
Also, if anyone has ever put on a track meet, road race, or trail race and sought to get it (1) insured, (2) certified, and/or (3) sanctioned, that already can get costly. There are levels of sanctioning, too, where testing is not required but for a situation where a record may be set. (My understanding, and I haven't had to go too far into this yet, is that you can set up a testing option *if* a record is possibly done AND you wish it to be certifiable, which is a whole process.)
Imagine all these small D3 schools putting on meets having to go through this process—it could have a real impact unless there is more support from the NCAA, USADA, and/or USATF.
So, what should an improved anti-doping testing regime look like?
One very simple idea: if you finish top 10 at the ncaa meet, you are automatically in the USADA testing pool. There are over 1,000 NCAA member institutions. A nominal fee per institution would cover the cost.
Next idea, give USADA the authority to investigate, at their expense, any case they want. This will allow for the pursuit of non-analytical cases (this is how they got Lance Armstrong btw). The NCAA does not have an investigative arm; however, USADA does. Allow them to use it.
Third would be require anyone competing at the NCAA (or conference if you want to go a step farther) meet to be a member of their country's governing body (USATF, etc). Again, this would give USADA authority.
Great to see that the AP is calling for better oversight in the NCAA, it has been a long time coming. On the other hand, it is honestly so sad and disheartening to see the Rowan coaching staff continue to stay silent, pretend like it isn't happening, and hide behind legal threats while this story continues to pick up international attention. They continue to skirt any accountability to their team or reputation. It seems teams are avoiding their Oscar Moore Invite because of this, good for them.
Anyways, the Sam Howell 10k at Princeton tomorrow looks like it'll be interesting.
Great to see that the AP is calling for better oversight in the NCAA, it has been a long time coming. On the other hand, it is honestly so sad and disheartening to see the Rowan coaching staff continue to stay silent, pretend like it isn't happening, and hide behind legal threats while this story continues to pick up international attention. They continue to skirt any accountability to their team or reputation. It seems teams are avoiding their Oscar Moore Invite because of this, good for them.
Anyways, the Sam Howell 10k at Princeton tomorrow looks like it'll be interesting.
Looks like the D3 record is 28:31.6 from 2023. Does he have that in him running solo?
I don't recognize any of the Seton Hall or Monmouth names.
You have put yourself in the shoes of someone who is objective, reasonable, and wants clean sport. USADA establishes the national standard of anti-doping governance. For some reason the NCAA doesn't conform to these standards ie the absence of non-analytical testing, a complete lack of an investigative arm, shorter ban times, no specialized analyses, etc etc. Maybe a university openly flaunting this loophole is what it will take for the NCAA to make a change for the better.
I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how a more stringent testing regime could be implemented at the college level.
Look, I agree, the NCAA should do more—but what should that look like?
I think this thread is a perfect example of the complexities of this because it deals with D3, not D1 or even D2.
Testing is costly. Are they doing random testing at all sanctioned meets? If so, the costs of meets will skyrocket. That reduces access. Only testing at a few more high-profile meets? I mean, nationals of course, and maybe any regionals, maybe something else, too?
Then there is the issue with the claims regarding Clevenger here. Competition testing very well might not catch someone doing some EPO or peptides if they time it well. So, does that mean there would be a testing pool a la World Athletics' testing pool? (Some NCAA kids are already in that pool, sure, but not all—and not Clevenger.)
So, I agree, there needs to be more anti-doping regulation and testing, but I do think it is interesting trying to sort out what that would look like.
Also, if anyone has ever put on a track meet, road race, or trail race and sought to get it (1) insured, (2) certified, and/or (3) sanctioned, that already can get costly. There are levels of sanctioning, too, where testing is not required but for a situation where a record may be set. (My understanding, and I haven't had to go too far into this yet, is that you can set up a testing option *if* a record is possibly done AND you wish it to be certifiable, which is a whole process.)
Imagine all these small D3 schools putting on meets having to go through this process—it could have a real impact unless there is more support from the NCAA, USADA, and/or USATF.
So, what should an improved anti-doping testing regime look like?
An easy start would be to
1) Put the NCAA under USADA's jurisdiction.
2) State that an admission of drug usage is the same as a positive test.
I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how a more stringent testing regime could be implemented at the college level.
Look, I agree, the NCAA should do more—but what should that look like?
I think this thread is a perfect example of the complexities of this because it deals with D3, not D1 or even D2.
Testing is costly. Are they doing random testing at all sanctioned meets? If so, the costs of meets will skyrocket. That reduces access. Only testing at a few more high-profile meets? I mean, nationals of course, and maybe any regionals, maybe something else, too?
Then there is the issue with the claims regarding Clevenger here. Competition testing very well might not catch someone doing some EPO or peptides if they time it well. So, does that mean there would be a testing pool a la World Athletics' testing pool? (Some NCAA kids are already in that pool, sure, but not all—and not Clevenger.)
So, I agree, there needs to be more anti-doping regulation and testing, but I do think it is interesting trying to sort out what that would look like.
Also, if anyone has ever put on a track meet, road race, or trail race and sought to get it (1) insured, (2) certified, and/or (3) sanctioned, that already can get costly. There are levels of sanctioning, too, where testing is not required but for a situation where a record may be set. (My understanding, and I haven't had to go too far into this yet, is that you can set up a testing option *if* a record is possibly done AND you wish it to be certifiable, which is a whole process.)
Imagine all these small D3 schools putting on meets having to go through this process—it could have a real impact unless there is more support from the NCAA, USADA, and/or USATF.
So, what should an improved anti-doping testing regime look like?
An easy start would be to
1) Put the NCAA under USADA's jurisdiction.
2) State that an admission of drug usage is the same as a positive test.
Heaven forbid if they tested NCAA's cash cows FB and BB. Wonder how many in these sports are jacked up on the juice? Now you know why the NCAA has balked at more stringent testing.
I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how a more stringent testing regime could be implemented at the college level.
Look, I agree, the NCAA should do more—but what should that look like?
I think this thread is a perfect example of the complexities of this because it deals with D3, not D1 or even D2.
Testing is costly. Are they doing random testing at all sanctioned meets? If so, the costs of meets will skyrocket. That reduces access. Only testing at a few more high-profile meets? I mean, nationals of course, and maybe any regionals, maybe something else, too?
Then there is the issue with the claims regarding Clevenger here. Competition testing very well might not catch someone doing some EPO or peptides if they time it well. So, does that mean there would be a testing pool a la World Athletics' testing pool? (Some NCAA kids are already in that pool, sure, but not all—and not Clevenger.)
So, I agree, there needs to be more anti-doping regulation and testing, but I do think it is interesting trying to sort out what that would look like.
Also, if anyone has ever put on a track meet, road race, or trail race and sought to get it (1) insured, (2) certified, and/or (3) sanctioned, that already can get costly. There are levels of sanctioning, too, where testing is not required but for a situation where a record may be set. (My understanding, and I haven't had to go too far into this yet, is that you can set up a testing option *if* a record is possibly done AND you wish it to be certifiable, which is a whole process.)
Imagine all these small D3 schools putting on meets having to go through this process—it could have a real impact unless there is more support from the NCAA, USADA, and/or USATF.
So, what should an improved anti-doping testing regime look like?
One very simple idea: if you finish top 10 at the ncaa meet, you are automatically in the USADA testing pool. There are over 1,000 NCAA member institutions. A nominal fee per institution would cover the cost.
Yeah as I mentioned earlier, NCAA skiing already does something similar. All athletes AND coaches competing at NCAA champs must be an active USSA member (USATF equivalent) which automatically brings in USADA and WADA jurisdiction.
So for anyone saying "well then they'd have to test football and bball players". No they don't, NCAA already has separate bylaws for each sport. Skiing has a very similar (toothless, non-existent) NCAA drug testing that XC/Track have at championships. The big difference is they require participants to be active members of organizations who have a much higher rigor for testing and investigation.
So no, WADA isn't at some random early season race drug testing skiers, but if a similar situation were to arise in skiing where there is a preponderance of accusations and credible accusations of doping, USADA and WADA could do an investigation
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
missed a closing quote
One very simple idea: if you finish top 10 at the ncaa meet, you are automatically in the USADA testing pool. There are over 1,000 NCAA member institutions. A nominal fee per institution would cover the cost.
Next idea, give USADA the authority to investigate, at their expense, any case they want. This will allow for the pursuit of non-analytical cases (this is how they got Lance Armstrong btw). The NCAA does not have an investigative arm; however, USADA does. Allow them to use it.
Third would be require anyone competing at the NCAA (or conference if you want to go a step farther) meet to be a member of their country's governing body (USATF, etc). Again, this would give USADA authority.
I love your ideas. it feels like it shouldn't be too hard for these changes to happen.
2) State that an admission of drug usage is the same as a positive test.
Heaven forbid if they tested NCAA's cash cows FB and BB. Wonder how many in these sports are jacked up on the juice? Now you know why the NCAA has balked at more stringent testing.
Ha! They do test. The doping is just more sophisticated. A *lot* more sophisticated. I went to a football factory university. It’s kind of wild how sophisticated it was then, and it’s only gotten more sophisticated since.
It helps, and the AP story reminded me of this, that the NCAA schools get a heads up of when the testing will occur and who will be tested.
We may soon lock this thread if it is just a few people posting back and forth to one another. Threads are not meant for 2 people to insult one another