• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

DE Noah Spence (Official Thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
I really feel bad for Noah; but he did do something really stupid here. I'm sure it was a "violation of team rules" too.

Sort of like Carlos Hyde and the night club incident, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and made a really bad decision; and got a 3 game suspension.
 
Upvote 0
Let's assume for a moment that Noah's story is accurate: someone gave him a drink at a party that turned out to have been spiked with X. That makes him unlucky, not stupid. How many of us watch our beverage full-time at a party from the time the container is opened (fresh from retail) until we've drained it? If you say you do, you're a got-dam liar. "Bad decision?" Oh, please. He's a kid, and kids in college go to parties. Not so many of those parties have bozos around spiking people's drinks.

The moralizing by many here is beyond belief. Maybe he's telling a fib here, but his track record (all-B1G academic; graduated from an excellent academic parochial HS) urges me to give him the benefit of the doubt. And that being the case, I think the punishment doesn't at all fit the "crime." I can't blame his folks for going the litigation route.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck said:
Let's assume for a moment that Noah's story is accurate: someone gave him a drink at a party that turned out to have been spiked with X. That makes him unlucky, not stupid. How many of us watch our beverage full-time at a party from the time the container is opened (fresh from retail) until we've drained it? If you say you do, you're a got-dam liar. "Bad decision?" Oh, please. He's a kid, and kids in college go to parties. Not so many of those parties have bozos around spiking people's drinks.

The moralizing by many here is beyond belief. Maybe he's telling a fib here, but his track record (all-B1G academic; graduated from an excellent academic parochial HS) urges me to give him the benefit of the doubt. And that being the case, I think the punishment doesn't at all fit the "crime." I can't blame his folks for going the litigation route.
Click to expand...

OK, you're right. Maybe he was an unlucky victim of the circumstances. Especially after a drink or 2 you lose some of your inhibitions and tend to go with the flow.

However, depending on where the party was and/or who all were in attendance he still might have made a bad decision.
 
Upvote 0
Isn't Spence just a true soph, and so probably under the legal drinking age anyway? And I assume the "spiked" drink didalready have alcohol in it? I'm not one to moralize about this kind of stuff (though I think everyone should be aware who is handling their beverages), but I'm inclined to agree that Spence may have put himself in a questionable situation to begin with. Nothing good after 10 PM and so forth.
 
Upvote 0
Fungo Squiggly said:
Would you feel the same way if it was weed? Or underage drinking? Jesus, it's just a recreational drug, not even rape, murder, arson, or rape. Or stampeding cattle.
Click to expand...

Or meeting with agents. Or selling signed jerseys to agents. Or having your rent paid by a booster. All things that were piddly 1 game suspensions for USC + SEC; and all suspensions conveniently timed to apply to games against little sisters of the poor.
 
Upvote 0
SEREbuckeye said:
That wasn't the reason the suspension was reduced. Did you not read the Ozone article or did you just come to your own conclusion?

From the article:
"According to the report, Spence's father said the conference originally suspended Spence for a year because the Big Ten considers ecstasy a performance-enhancing drug.

The family appealed the suspension, and it was dropped to three games because the NCAA considers ecstasy a street drug, which carries a lesser penalty, the report states."
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that this doesn't strike anyone else as being totally ridiculous. If I'm understanding this correctly, the Big Ten institutes a rule that X carries a year-long ban and doesn't bother to check what the NCAA has to say in its rulebook regarding X. A player tests positive for X and the Big Ten institutes its one-year ban for the player, and only when the player says, "Hey, the NCAA doesn't have as draconian a penalty for X" does the Big Ten say, "Oh, OK. In that case, you only get three games."

Am I the only one that thinks the above scenario makes the Big Ten look like a bunch of clowns for not even bothering to consult the NCAA rulebook before making their own rules, and yet considering the NCAA rulebook to be such persuasive authority that the Big Ten immediately caves when someone points them to the NCAA rulebook? :lol:. Amateur hour, indeed, Big Ten.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
This is absurd. A year for testing positive, reduced to three games for being dosed. That's like getting suspended a year for robbery or three games for getting robbed. If the B1G think he did something that was against their rules then they should have at least stuck to their guns and denied his appeal. This reeks of another "let them know we're still in charge" kind of move from the powers that be in college athletics.
Click to expand...

Mo C found out who is still in charge. Some things never change.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top