If he’s pleading guilty, then the UK Office of Student Conduct will also be involved.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll choose to impose a suspension on him, but Rodriguez will at least have to deal with that process too (if he hasn’t already).
Bad C-rod news ...potentially
- Thread starter Jjohnb5393
- Start date
If he’s pleading guilty, then the UK Office of Student Conduct will also be involved.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll choose to impose a suspension on him, but Rodriguez will at least have to deal with that process too (if he hasn’t already).
Oh, I expect 3-4 game suspension based on our past history of overpunishment for player indiscretions.
It is just time to stop self-inflicting damage to your own program.
There are other ways to handle discipline without it being detrimental to the whole team.
Past time to do away with that BS too.
No way a committee of inexperienced, underage students should have ANY say in a matter that took place off campus and no other student was impacted in any way.
Actually the hearing boards consist of one faculty member, one staff member and one student, with the Dean of Students responsible for overall governance of the process. And Rodriguez agreed to abide by the code of student conduct, so it doesn’t really matter if it was off campus.
Anyway, I doubt that Rodriguez would have requested a formal hearing. It’s more likely he would seek informal resolution which is handled by a single employee, usually a conduct officer.
The bigger question is whether UK still has the same Drug and Alcohol Policy as they did a few years ago. Under that policy, a first offense was a mandatory suspension of 10% of the season with no room for negotiation: I believe that policy was still in effect when Matt Roark was arrested for DUI, but I don’t know if UK has changed the policy since then.
But if you’re upset about the potential of Rodriguez being punished, then I guess you can at least take solace in the fact that CM Newton’s alcohol policy is no longer active. Rodriguez would’ve been suspended for the year and lost his scholarship if that were still in effect.
How can we say if 1, 2, 3 or 4 games is too much or too little when we don’t even know what he might have done? It’s crazy the media hinted at this very serious issue six weeks ago and none of them ever figured out what it was or are just straight up not telling us.
I was simply going off of the fact that he pled guilty to a DUI.
Under UK’s Drug and Alcohol Policy from a few years ago, there were mandatory penalties that escalated for repeat offenders:
- First offense: suspended 10% of season
- Second offense: suspended 50% of season
- Third offense: Dismissal
Did his case ever actually go to trial? I seem to recall things playing out weird in his situation.
I know he was in the hospital initially, but wasn’t there a really long delay until the trial? And then I’m not sure if they actually ended up trying him, but I can’t remember exactly.
For sure. Haven't forgotten those crazy times. Just makes no sense to single out your star athletes when 99% of the students on campus are doing this and more every weekend.
Shouldn't they just suspend them all????
Was curious about this so I went back and read a few old articles on Ashely Lowery’s wreck, and there were a couple of odd things about his situation.
One, his court date was massively delayed as I thought I remembered (and I also didn’t see any articles confirming that he actually went to trial). His crash occurred the May after his sophomore season and by the time he completed his senior season, he still hadn’t gone to court. So at the earliest, his trial would’ve been 2 years after his crash. It was also clear that he would face a long delay pretty much right from the start.
Second, the police report mentioned they took a urine sample to determine his blood alcohol level which also seemed odd me. For starters, he required an ICU stay after the wreck so I’m assuming he lost consciousness. Why (and how) would you collect a urine sample from Lowery at that point, and why wouldn’t the police have simply had someone draw some blood?
And while I’m certainly no expert on DUIs or alcohol testing, I’ve never heard of police using a urine test to determine someone’s blood alcohol level. I’ve only heard of breathalyzers or blood tests. If there are any lawyers on here who handle DUI cases, I’d love to know if that’s a common method for testing for DUIs. Also, is a urine test even an accurate way to measure someone’s level of impairment? It would seem to me that your alcohol level would rise in your blood first, and then start to rise in your bladder as your blood alcohol level begins to drop. In other words, by the time someone has high levels of alcohol in their urine, is it possible their blood alcohol level has dropped maybe to the point where they are no longer be impaired?
Without knowing more about the accuracy of urine tests for blood alcohol levels, I’d be inclined to fight those charges especially if I didn’t think I was impaired. If UK felt like Lowery had any chance of winning in court, then I can understand why they would have been hesitant to suspend him before he was convicted of anything.
Lowery also wasn’t actively dealing with his case during that time because he had such a long delay, so you also couldn’t justify suspending him pending the outcome of the case. If he needed to focus on his case at that time, then maybe it makes sense to suspend him before the trial. But he was basically in limbo for 2 years and I’m not sure how much process there was for him to address. Had UK decided to suspend him pending the outcome of his case, Lowery would’ve ended up suspended for two years which would’ve been really excessive.
It looks to me like the Lowery situation simply had some very unusual, extenuating circumstances. Without knowing more details, I’m inclined to think that UK made the right call in handling his situation a bit differently.
Sometimes making an exception is the right thing to do and Lowery’s situation feels like it called for an exception.
Athletes should not be singled out. They should be treated exactly the same.
But I’ve not seen any indication that regular students are getting a pass from UK when it comes to DUIs while athletes are being held accountable.
If that’s occurring though, then it’s a problem and should be addressed.
It doesn't seem right that a person can be penalized by the state and then be penalized by the state again for the same act.
I think it is. That would mean 5 quarters of suspension for CRod. Can Stoops pick the quarters or are they required to be missed starting with the first quarter of the season.
If it’s still the same policy, then he would be required to serve the suspension at the start of the season. The language was something to the effect of suspension from the “next eligible” 10% of games.
I can’t remember though if they would include a partial game suspension when calculating the 10%. I want to say that the suspensions got rounded to the nearest full game, which would mean Rodriguez would only be suspended for the first game and not for 5 quarters. But I’m not positive on that, so I could be wrong.
I assume you are referencing KSR but if you call the writers on the premium board media then there would have been 2 because I recall one of the guys there also discussing it.
If he gets a major suspension for what turns out to be a minor offense that other teams would laugh at it will just be another rxample of mitch's yreatment of football.
And iis Billy Clyde still available, maybe he can hire him again.
Been quite a while si9nce he raped and pillaged, isn't it about time mitch revealed his reason for suspending him, or is he going to be kicked off the team? Been quite a while, some murder trials don't take this long.
Sounds like something Thug U would have no trouble covering up, hell they had eight of them get a fatty down and kick him into the hospital and beat up an off duty cop on the way out. ONE of them got a one game suspension against Tennessee nobody., they only beat like 50-0.. Which is the reason I still call them Thug U.
Lol. no....
Who's going to release it? Why should they?
CRod could make a statement, but that would only hurt him. UK can't make a statement, because it's not their info to leak. CMS can't make a statement until they have a decision about what they're going to do, but he STILL doesn't have to tell JACK to anyone.
People acting like they're owed info about something that's none of their business is why people would leak the vague "trouble" in the first place. They trolled you and you still got the hook in your mouth. Try not to let your emotions be controlled by what someone else does or says.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
MJ On Post Game: Kerr May Not Be Back Next Year- Latest: the nail at the foul line
