ESPN: Clemson expects to be without Dexter Lawrence, 2 others after failed drug tests

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,568
Reaction score
15,642
Points
113
per ESPN:

Star defensive tackle Dexter Lawrence was among three Clemson players who tested positive for a banned substance earlier this month, coach Dabo Swinney told reporters Monday.

Sources told ESPN's Mark Schlabach that the No. 2 Tigers don't anticipate having all three players for Saturday's College Football Playoff semifinal against No. 3 Notre Dame (4 p.m., ESPN/ESPNApp) at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.

Lawrence and the two other players -- backup offensive lineman Zach Giella and freshman tight end Braden Galloway -- had a "sliver" of a substance called ostarine in their test samples, Swinney said.

"We do have an issue that we're dealing with," Swinney told reporters. "And, you know, I think that the best thing is to just be transparent in that."

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...emson-tigers-dt-dexter-lawrence-positive-test

Go Gophers!!
 

"We do have an issue that we're dealing with," Swinney told reporters. "And, you know, <b>I think that the best thing is to just be transparent in that."</b>

Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

"We do have an issue that we're dealing with," Swinney told reporters. "And, you know, <b>I think that the best thing is to just be transparent in that."</b>

Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What’s so interesting about it? You a Clemson fan? Or Notre Dame? Or Tracy Claeys? Or Rochelle Olson? Or Mark Coyle! Or Eric Kaler?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

What’s so interesting about it? You a Clemson fan? Or Notre Dame? Or Tracy Claeys? Or Rochelle Olson? Or Mark Coyle! Or Eric Kaler?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s interesting that they have taken the exact opposite approach as the U. Alabama did as well. I find that interesting.
Yep. Nope. Yep. Sure? Nope. Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Wonder if failed drug tests are different than what happened here? Maybe that's why it is easy to be transparent - then had no choice.
 



He was smart to get ahead of it so nobody discusses it.





/s
 

It's easy to be transparent when your fan base and local media don't want to crucify the program anytime a kid gets into any trouble.
 

I really think it has to do with keeping the opponent in the dark as long as they can. Otherwise it is silly not to just give the names as everyone will know once the game starts.
 



"We do have an issue that we're dealing with," Swinney told reporters. "And, you know, I think that the best thing is to just be transparent in that."
Wow, maybe that's who PJ copied his Farmers Alliance from? Dabo seems to actually live it in his culture. Let's see Alabama, Clemson diffuse these issues and PJ turns them into topic #1 regarding Gopher football.

So and so violated team rules. Done. No, instead make 110 guys suspects. Brilliant
 

"We do have an issue that we're dealing with," Swinney told reporters. "And, you know, I think that the best thing is to just be transparent in that."
Wow, maybe that's who PJ copied his Farmers Alliance from? Dabo seems to actually live it in his culture. Let's see Alabama, Clemson diffuse these issues and PJ turns them into topic #1 regarding Gopher football.

So and so violated team rules. Done. No, instead make 110 guys suspects. Brilliant

Suspects?

There are no suspects.
 
Last edited:

I always wondered just how much performance-enhancing drug use goes on in college vs the NFL? Wonder if it explains why some guys are busts in the NFL if they have a stricter testing system. I can't imagine the NCAA tests anywhere near the level the NFL does.
 

Suspects?

There are no suspects.

That’s not true. A few posters have suspected that Cashman may be one of the players suspended due to the timing of his surprising announcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



That’s not true. A few posters have suspected that Cashman may be one of the players suspended due to the timing of his surprising announcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are no suspects.

Only a few posters losing their minds over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The LBs have to be suspects. They are being replaced by DBs and DLs. The lack of transparency always drives speculation, ridiculous or not. It also raises questions about the teams culture.
 

That’s not true. A few posters have suspected that Cashman may be one of the players suspended due to the timing of his surprising announcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait, it’s drugs now? Alert the press - this is big.
 

The LBs have to be suspects. They are being replaced by DBs and DLs. The lack of transparency always drives speculation, ridiculous or not. It also raises questions about the teams culture.

Where are all these question raisers? Other than a few on GHole making a whole lot more out of it than needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The LBs have to be suspects. They are being replaced by DBs and DLs. The lack of transparency always drives speculation, ridiculous or not. It also raises questions about the teams culture.


They are “suspects” now...you guys are really losing it. How about supporting the players until facts are known instead of supporting the media gossip machine.
 



Why would anyone be suspended if there are facts unknown? That surely isn't fair. The media gossip machine woulda shoulda coulda been shut down day 1 had this been handled better. THAT is supporting the players.
 

What would you call someone that is suspected of something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was a violation of team rules. That’s it.

Only place anyone has turned them into “suspects” is on GHole by you and a few others.

Give it a rest. It’s a non story without suspects.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

There was a violation of team rules. That’s it.

Only place anyone has turned them into “suspects” is on GHole by you and a few others.

Give it a rest. It’s a non story without suspects.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your first sentence, but think you may not understand what a suspect is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I agree with your first story, but think you may not understand what a suspect is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand perfectly well what a suspect is.

Calling the players suspects and what that term generally applies for this situation is complete nonsense. And I am pretty sure you know that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

A bowl game suspension for anything is not a non-story. These guys are going to school for free on other people's money. Do you donate your money to have players suspended for violations of team policy? I suspect your view would be very different if TC was HC. Mine would not.
 

A bowl game suspension for anything is not a non-story. These guys are going to school for free on other people's money. Do you donate your money to have players suspended for violations of team policy? I suspect your view would be very different if TC was HC. Mine would not.

A suspension for violating team rules is a non-story no matter what game it is and no matter who the head coach is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I understand perfectly well what a suspect is.

Calling the players suspects and what that term generally applies for this situation is complete nonsense. And I am pretty sure you know that.

noun
noun: suspect; plural noun: suspects
/ˈsəsˌpekt/

1.
a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offense.

Breaking team rules would be an offense, not a crime, but still fits the definition.
 

I understand perfectly well what a suspect is.

Calling the players suspects and what that term generally applies in this situation is complete nonsense. And I am pretty sure you know that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What does that term generally imply? Anything above that they violated team rules is on you. You may not suspect anyone, but if others have thrown out a name of someone they suspect may have violated team rules and been suspended then it would not be accurate to say there are no suspects. That would be the definition of someone suspected of doing something. I think the point originally made was that the U could have eliminated anyone else from being one and chose not to. You can agree with that approach, but to say there are no suspects is just not accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Based on the social media I’ve seen 99.99% of fans agree with PJ on this.
 

Some of you have lost your minds over this.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




Top Bottom