The press conference did NOT address the issue of other players testing postive.

[Jeebus]

Hey why don't you guys start some new rumors and inuendos? Seems like you just can't have enough misery in your feeble lives. Kick this dog until it barks again.

+ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

This gunman on the grassy knoll crap is absurd.


The "sources" need to be outed. They are doing one of two things:

1.) They are infringing on the players privacy and rights by divulging private information.
or
2.) They are maliciously spreading false rumors that harm the state, the university, and the program.

 

[jcwalter]

I can say emphatically that I disagree with the rules, in the business world (no matter the age) you lose your job without prejudice. This creates a sense that "the rules do not apply to us" type mantra. While I am happy there is no more suspensions, but at what cost will we pay for this down the road?

Not necessarily. Some employers will offer rehabilitation and counseling to someone who is willing to change as opposed to firing the individual. Like Barta and Ferentz, you can't lump every situation together.

If they caught someone smoking pot, for example, I would much rather they offer the rehab and set out clear guidelines for the future than dismiss or suspend the student. Let that person have the chance to change and learn, these are young adults and they are prone to making mistakes like everyone else is at that age.

If it is a recurring problem, then yes those steps must be taken, but for someone who messed up and didn't get into legal trouble, I think they have a much better opportunity to turn someone's life around using rehab and keeping things internal than announcing it to the world and publicly disciplining the student.

 

[Billso]

Exactly, they admitted that there are ways around the tests. This is not new knowledge to most people who do not have their head buried in the sand but I am not sure what can ever be done to fix it.

Serious drug testing programs use direct-observation protocols:

"The new DOT rule calls for the employee to raise his or her shirt, blouse, or dress/skirt, as appropriate, above the waist; lower clothing and underpants; and then turn around so a same-gender observer can check for any device that can be used to alter the drug test."

BNSF - Employees - Communications - BNSF News - DOT New Drug Testing Observation Method Scheduled to go into Effect Nov. 1

 

[djwoody98]

The ice is very thin in IC right now.

 

[Gohawks123]

Anybody that can read between the lines saw what happened.

"We're not going to discuss if/who player tested positive"

"A positive test doesn't necessarily disqualify you from games"

I doubt the rumors of several players testing positive were flat out wrong. You can believe whatever you want though.

 

[tweeterhawk]

Duffman, if you were NOT trying to stir the pot then WHY did you use the title to your thread that you did? You SEEM to drilling into what you felt was a WEAKNESS in the presser. Sorry, not buying it.

 

[Billso]

I can say emphatically that I disagree with the rules, in the business world (no matter the age) you lose your job without prejudice.

False. While you can't get HIRED with a positive test, most companies of any size have counseling protocols for their existing employees, including every major company I've worked for. Even in regulated transportation industries - railroading for instance. You're removed from service immediately but depending on circumstances often have the opportunity to engage a Substance Abuse Counselor and work your way back. If it's an egregious case, or repeat offense, the company will likely fire you of course.

It is in the company's interest to help an otherwise good employee, not throw them away. That's Iowa's policy too and I agree with it. You publicly tar a kid with a first-time drug test failure, thanks to Google you've just screwed him for future employment. So it is right that schools tread very lightly with the public aspect.

Sorry, but we are not entitled to know everything about every kid in the program, just because they play football for Iowa.

 

[Billso]

I doubt the rumors of several players testing positive were flat out wrong. You can believe whatever you want though.

And 9/11 was an inside job. And the moon landings were faked. And Drew Tate broke his leg.

 

[Clark]

Let's see. Sources indicate players refused and/or failed drug tests.

Then the presser announced individual players who refused/failed a drug would not be announced, and that it even with a failure/refusal the player can still compete in a game if they undergo counseling and treatment.

Believe what you wish.

There wasn't a freaking drug test to fail!!

This is unbelievable. Either you believe Barta and Ferentz LIED today or you must conclude that the whole damn rumor was made up. There is no middle ground. They specifically said they did not do additional testing. They wouldn't have even tested 20 players let alone have that many test positive.

 

[hawkfaninTX]

False. While you can't get HIRED with a positive test, most companies of any size have counseling protocols for their existing employees, including every major company I've worked for. Even in regulated transportation industries - railroading for instance. You're removed from service immediately but depending on circumstances often have the opportunity to engage a Substance Abuse Counselor and work your way back. If it's an egregious case, or repeat offense, the company will likely fire you of course.

It is in the company's interest to help an otherwise good employee, not throw them away. That's Iowa's policy too and I agree with it. You publicly tar a kid with a first-time drug test failure, thanks to Google you've just screwed him for future employment. So it is right that schools tread very lightly with the public aspect.


Sorry, but we are not entitled to know everything about every kid in the program, just because they play football for Iowa.

While I agree with most of your post, what I put in bold is what I would expect the team to do at the very least! However they will not receive any penalty, at all? Double standards breeds discontent.

 

[jcwalter]

While I agree with most of your post, what I put in bold is what I would expect the team to do at the very least! However they will not receive any penalty, at all? Double standards breeds discontent.

Playing college football is not driving a semi, train, being an armed police officer etc. I also doubt if someone is caught for first offense it isn't talk to a counselor for an hour and then business as usual. I am sure it is multiple meetings with drug counselors, multiple meetings with coaches, benchmarks to be maintained with school and practice, etc.

So I think that is the penalty, knowing you screwed up and having to work back the trust from the staff.

 

[hawkfaninTX]

Playing college football is not driving a semi, train, being an armed police officer etc. I also doubt if someone is caught for first offense it isn't talk to a counselor for an hour and then business as usual. I am sure it is multiple meetings with drug counselors, multiple meetings with coaches, benchmarks to be maintained with school and practice, etc.

So I think that is the penalty, knowing you screwed up and having to work back the trust from the staff.

What I was referring to was the release of duty, I think an equivalent sufficient penalty would be one game. (let alone a game that marks the reward of hard work of the season which you even get bowl presents.) this is a mixed message to these so-called "kids"

 

[Xerxes]

This presser sounded pretty much like all of Kirk's pressers. Vague answers, very little insight, no responsibility taken, and very little news.

Exactly what I expected.

Kirk actually reminds me a bit of how I was in Junior High. I didn't like school much then and did the absolute minimum to stay afloat, just enough to get by. I didn't want to be there and wasn't afraid to show it in my body language and tone.

That's what Kirk's pressers and public statements are. Just enough to get by, minimal effort. He had to make a statment and answer questions before rumors got out of control. He did so without saying much and now he goes back to Fort Kinnick until more problems arise or anther game is played.

 

[racerhawk]

False. While you can't get HIRED with a positive test, most companies of any size have counseling protocols for their existing employees, including every major company I've worked for. Even in regulated transportation industries - railroading for instance. You're removed from service immediately but depending on circumstances often have the opportunity to engage a Substance Abuse Counselor and work your way back. If it's an egregious case, or repeat offense, the company will likely fire you of course.

It is in the company's interest to help an otherwise good employee, not throw them away. That's Iowa's policy too and I agree with it. You publicly tar a kid with a first-time drug test failure, thanks to Google you've just screwed him for future employment. So it is right that schools tread very lightly with the public aspect.

Sorry, but we are not entitled to know everything about every kid in the program, just because they play football for Iowa.

Very good points and I agree completely. My employers have also operated this way.

 

[racerhawk]

This presser sounded pretty much like all of Kirk's pressers. Vague answers, very little insight, no responsibility taken, and very little news.

Exactly what I expected.

Kirk actually reminds me a bit of how I was in Junior High. I didn't like school much then and did the absolute minimum to stay afloat, just enough to get by. I didn't want to be there and wasn't afraid to show it in my body language and tone.

That's what Kirk's pressers and public statements are. Just enough to get by, minimal effort. He had to make a statment and answer questions before rumors got out of control. He did so without saying much and now he goes back to Fort Kinnick until more problems arise or anther game is played.

Maybe he's a good leader. Perhaps it isn't always the best plan to be hyperdramatic and emotional. He has a problem on his team. His job is to represent the university and the program in the best way possible. If there actually is a systemic issue on the team, I will of course be very disappointed. However, why comment about unsubstantiated rumors when you're the head football coach of a b10 program? It's just gives those rumors legs. I think it is a leader's job to get the facts to people, and when appropriate, let people know that things are going to be okay. Now, if he's actually hiding a much larger issue, then maybe that's another story.

I do think that he could've got out ahead of the story a little more, however. Maybe he had reasons for this. I don't know.

 

[DuffMan]

Duffman, if you were NOT trying to stir the pot then WHY did you use the title to your thread that you did? You SEEM to drilling into what you felt was a WEAKNESS in the presser. Sorry, not buying it.

LOL tweeter I didn't know you were the title police. Please tell me what would be a more appropriate title. I'll be sure to run all future titles through you.

 

[jcwalter]

What I was referring to was the release of duty, I think an equivalent sufficient penalty would be one game. (let alone a game that marks the reward of hard work of the season which you even get bowl presents.) this is a mixed message to these so-called "kids"

I understand you think a game for a first time offense is fair, but it really isn't. If you do that, then the offense comes into the public sphere. Now media and the like will question how everything is being handled. Keeping it closed without the suspension allows the staff to handle the offense with the appropriate response. This also allows the student to get help privately and an opportunity to right the ship.

I think it is like a differed judgement. The people that need too know about the problem, and if you screw up then they have no choice but to take further action. But if the student corrects the problem, then the offense can be cleaned away and allow the student to continue on with life.

 

[silvanthalas]

There wasn't a freaking drug test to fail!!

Q. Have there been any drug tests since Derrell’s arrest on Thursday?
GARY BARTA: We drug test just about every week. So the answer is for all sports, yes, there have been additional tests since last week. But not out of the ordinarily, meaning this is something we do every week.

Q. Football players?
COACH FERENTZ: A little bit ironic. We were testing 10 people at the time of the arrest, just a little bit of irony for you, a little comic relief.

(Comic relief? Really? )

Either way, this does not account for the remainder of the season and year before DJK's arrest. And I don't see anything in the transcript that addresses that one way or the other (but feel free to provide quotes otherwise).

Several guys could have failed at any point, but since it was a first offense, we're none the wiser due to the policy in place. We just don't know.

Hence, it should come as no surprise that people would still have questions and concerns. Anybody who claims there shouldn't be is fooling themselves into wanting the issue to simply go away.

 

[Billso]

What I was referring to was the release of duty, I think an equivalent sufficient penalty would be one game. (let alone a game that marks the reward of hard work of the season which you even get bowl presents.) this is a mixed message to these so-called "kids"

Yes Tex, I agree the "release from duty" equivalent would be a suspension, and that's less harsh than loss of job per your original post. However, this is common only in regulated transportation and public-safety jobs, and even then the individual's name is not made public.

I could bring myself to support moving to automatic first-offense suspension for student-athletes, IF it was shown the current penalty structure isn't meaningful to the players, and IF we were confident the underlying reason would remain private ("violation of team rules"). Not convinced on either of these.

Whether this is a "mixed message" depends on the internal discipline meted out to first-time offenders. You're wrongly assuming there's no penalty at all. From what I've heard over the years, getting on Kirk's bad side is not enjoyable whatsoever. Per former players, we know only a fraction of what goes on within Fort Kinnick.

 

[JonDMiller]

What if no one else did?