After all the junk I read on mgoblog about stoneburner and mewhort, I was beginning to think that Michigan was a dry state...
NCAA should step in.
Well this certainly doesn't help our chances against Bama
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
Don't worry Hail - they'll take a page out of the SEC book and suspend him after that game!
Umm...or our book? See Sugar Bowl vs. Arkansas.
I could be wrong, but I thought the Sugar Bowl pushed for the suspensions to come after the Bowl game for fear of losing money. Wasn't necessarily Ohio State's idea.
When you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
OSU still could've kept the players involved from participating.
Yeah - I don't think we can talk a lot of shit about convenient suspensions. We could have kept them out if we wanted to for sure - regardless of any lobbying by the Sugar Bowl or elsewhere.
Edit: but I mean come on, we had to get that damn SEC monkey off our backs dammit!
"Death created time to grow the things that it would kill" - Detective Rustin Cohle.
If I remember correctly, JT wanted them to sit the Sugar Bowl.
If so, he should've sat them out.
That may be true & you'll probably not find a bigger supporter of Jim Tressel than myself but in response to the comment about the SEC suspending players when it's convenient - I would say we can't really talk too much. The "Tat 5" played regardless of whether Coach thought they should sit...I for one am quite glad they did play but it leaves us in the position to not be judgmental about when in the season a player should be suspended.
Sugar Bowl may have suggested it, but it's not like we were pushing too hard in the other direction. OSU had the ability to suspend whomever they wanted and chose to give ourselves a fighting chance in the game, instead. We had to know those guys were going to be suspended for multiple games by that point in time, based on the AJ Green suspension.
Anyway, I'm just saying it's not like we are in the clear on this issue. So be careful throwing that out there about other schools.
The NCAA used their own rule that allowed deferring suspensions until the coming season for special circumstances such as bowl games and NCAA tournaments (see Calhoun, Jim. Served his 3 game suspension for recruiting violations this year and was allowed to take and coach his team to the NC.) The Sugar Bowl did not lobby the NCAA.
I was just trying to take a shot at the SEC - otherwise my comment wasn't serious at all.
Ok, so it was NCAA driven ($) instead of Sugar Bowl driven ($). I still think I have a valid point that we knew they were going to get suspended and didn't mind letting them get us the bowl win first.
I mean, we had the option to suspend them, right? It's not like the NCAA said "you canNOT suspend these guys for this game". Even though we didn't know the full extent of when everyone knew and all of that, at that point we knew they sold their trinkets for tats, an offense that had a multiple game suspension as the precedent for. We had the option and chose not to suspend them, but rather waited for the NCAA to do it the following year.
The NCAA doesn't make money on BCS bowls (or any bowls), so it was no skin off their nose if our guys played or didn't. They have a rule, they used it.
I see your point. My point is what poison said above. We can't talk $hit about convenient suspensions. Sure the NCAA used the rule, but we didn't have to follow suit. We could have and chose not to, because we wanted to win. I'm ok with it, I was all for it at the time too. But if we're throwing stones, we're in a particularly fragile glass house on this issue.
And GA buck was taking a shot at the SEC anyway, so this all started with good intentions.
I'm interested to see what action Hoke will take.
Too late to take away the summer scholarship. Possibly the fall? Yea... right.
This is a good lesson for student-athletes, though. If you're going to get caught, make sure its before summer term.
I'm curious to see what the BAC reading was. If it was something right at the limit, it might just be a game or two. If he was really drunk, he may not see the field this year.
It's his first offense and he's of age, but Hoke can't let it slide. He'll have to miss 'Bama, at an absolute minimum.
Who was the player for Florida that fell asleep at the traffic light...drunk, that Urban suspended for the first quarter of the SEC championship game (Pouncey, maybe?). If Hoke can handle a backlash, I vote for that punishment.
Carlos Dunlap was the player you're thinking of.
Heres the link from the mothership...
I am not sure about Michigan law. Do they have a law that is worse than going over the limit? Like speeding. Some states have a speeding violation and then a reckless violation for going 25 over. I don't think it matters how far over .08 he is. The probable cause and the breath test should be all of the evidence Hoke needs.
I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.
In VA if youre .15 or over its an 5 day jail sentence and up to a $1000 fine. plus one of those breathalizer locks on your car. and thats all for a first offense.
I don't know about Michigan, but here in Ohio, I got pulled over for going 33 over and I was only 16 at the time...no reckless op charge, just an expensive ticket.
Class of 2010.
Reckless Op is a discretionary charge by the officer. There is no per se in Ohio that I'm aware of, but they tend to charge it in over 20 cases as a rule.
The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009
We have the super drunk law. Not sure on details, but think they throw the book @ you if bac is 2X legal limit.
Really gotta disagree with that scenario here, Hail. If that was the case, it would be like saying "drunk driving is wrong, but it's more wrong if you're more drunk".
Drunk driving is always wrong, and it affects more than peeing on the side of a building. When you take the wheel drunk, you endanger hundreds of people with your actions.
I think I understand it. If you are right at the limit you may not realize how drunk you are, but if you can barely stand then there is no reason to think you would be more coordinated behind the wheel.
Well, to clarify, driving drunk is always wrong. And per the law, either you're drunk or you're not. However, I believe there is much more lapse in judgement if the room is spinning when you're at 1.6% vs when you might just be a little "smiley" at .085%.
Ever gone to BW3s to watch a game? Probably got some tall boys, yeah? Maybe 3 total over the 3 hours you're there (~6 12oz beers). So, that's 1 tall boy an hour or 2 bottles an hour. That is not excessive, in my opinion. However, by most estimations, that puts a 200 lb male of legal drinking age at about .085% BAC.
Now, I will confess I'm guilty of driving drunk under that scenario. Of course eating some wings will knock that down some, too, but consider it the danger zone. Not condoning it, but under those conditions, I was ok to drive. Had I been stopped, I could've gone to jail, but am I more or the same risk as someone who had 6 tall boys in 3 hours? Of course not.
My point was simply that if Fitz's BAC comes back at twice the limit, he made an extremely bad decision, whereas if he blew just over .08, he made a poor decision, but one that is more common than not.
Well I'm not 21, but I can associate with what your saying, and I'm saying it doesn't matter.
Like you alluded to, you don't always know how drunk you are, but the point is, driving when you're not 100% is dangerous, and that goes past when you're drinking, it includes when you're drowsy, or if you have dilated eyes, or any extenuating circumstance, where you may not, but could be putting others' lives in danger.
Example: After work, I like to go to Brubaker's with my coworkers. Sometimes I have ten to twelve beers, other times I have 2-4. I always leave my car in the parking lot at work, and arrange beforehand for someone to drive me home from the bar. It's not that hard.
I guess I agree that there's a point where the crime becomes intensely serious, If someone gets behind the wheel at, say, .2 or higher. But I don't think that driving at the limit should be downgraded.
Props for the usage of the word "pinched" here. Always a favorite verb of mine when used in place of "arrested".
Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.
best used in ferris bueller.
I know there's a game Saturday, and my ass will be there.
He should have to be Hoke's personal fry-cook for the entire season.
No, he's going to be on Hoke's bad side.
looking at Hoke, does he really have a 'good' side?
“The teams that don’t respect their coaches and don’t trust their coaches are the teams that go .500"
Does he have sides? He appears to be circular.
Beat me to it....
Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.
Touche, Flip, touche.
I was clearly only thinking in obverse/reverse terms and not sausage link terms.
Maybe Fitzgerald will be allowed to transfer without penalty? PSU is looking for players.
That would mean 20 hour work days... excessive.
Hoke made the right call with Stonum but that was before he established a winning culture. Now there is a lot more on the line this season, and Fitz has never been in trouble as far as I know.
I would think he is going to park it for at least a game, or he should.
Furthermore, lets not compare this to Stoney/Mewhort who were peeing in a public area. Drunk driving is serious and can severely injure or kill someone, I don't think the same can be said about Stoney's stream of bodily fluids
Agreed about the bodily fluids. After all, urine is sterile...
They just ran a story about dead fish in some lake because there was too much human urine content in it . . .
I don't think this is it but:
I thought for sure it must be Lake Erie. Have you ever been to Put-in-Bay? The ammonia content of the water around the island from people peeing off their boat must be lethal!
Technically it is only sterile in the bladder, once it hurts the urethra it is introduced to bacteria, but still not really a cause for concern.
If it hurts the urethra you should definitely get that checked out, sooner rather than later.
Haha, stupid spell check. **HITS**
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think comments on 11W would devolve in urethra and peeing issues.
I agree. Our guys lost their scholarship for a period of time. Let's see if this kid gets suspended first. FT's infraction is much more noteworthy. It is ironic that the question was asked of our fan base, if Meyer would treat the players with the same type of discipline if it were during the season. I guess we get to see what Hoke does now.
Looking forward to the reaction from the Hokester.
btw; Toussiant is 22 years old. His drinking is not a per se illegality. But nothing excuses drunk driving. The fanbase appears to be mostly furious at Toussaint. The whole atmosphere for bad behavior by football players in this media market is poisonous, in part because of the human crime wave also known as the Detroit Lions.
Yeah, Berry's off the team.
Definitely not a good time to be a football player in the state of michigan.
Depending on where you live, he would be better off being 18-20 and getting a DUI. It disappears at 21.
In Florida, DUI stays on your record for 75 years. No exceptions. It is basically a lifetime DUI sanction.
This will Hoke's first true test. If Toussaint plays vs. 'Bama, he's not serious about discipline and going thru the motions. I suspect Toussaint does play and we'll hear the same BS excuses that Oregon fans had when Blount was re-instated for the Rose Bowl and Toussaint did all the right things and served his punishment.
The good news: If Fitz plays against Bama, we can accuse Hoke of favoring his "circle of trust".
we can accuse Hoke of favoring his "circle of trust"
I read that as "circular gut".