Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Learning to live with UGA's drug policy

Had an argument with another Georgia fan recently that illustrated both the frustration Dawg fans feel regarding the yearly drug related suspensions and the no man's land that Georgia resides in compared to most of its immediate competitors.

The fact that the SEC's top officials recently discussed the (absurdly remote) possibility of a league wide drug testing program and uniform policies for positive tests is impressive in itself. But Texas A&M athletic director Eric Hyman put it best:
"If another school wants to do it a certain way and regulate it a certain way, that's their prerogative. What are we trying to do anyway? We're trying to help young people. I don't want another school to tell me how to do it." (via)
Who's to say one school's policy is better than another's? I don't want my neighbor having any kind of say so in how I raise and discipline my kids. So why should LSU want to adopt Kentucky's testing program and suspension policies? In short, schools like UGA have made their bed and now we must take a long, tortured slumber in it.

Have you sent Prez Adams his Thanks for the Memories card yet?

 Is it fair? No. But that doesn't mean it's wrong for the SEC to not have some form of uniform policy. Alabama can gain a competitive advantage over Mississippi State by allowing a player to play in their game after a positive test; a standard much lower than the MSU players on the same field. But that's how the University of Alabama chooses to run things. Do we all need the same entrance requirements for enrollment as well? Where does this train stop? Pre-game meals? Equipment deals? Checkboard endzones?

Just win the games on the field and let's stop belaboring minute details over fairness. Do you really think if Georgia players hadn't been so tired from pissing in all those cups they would've found a way to stop Eddie Lacy or managed to gain a first down and kill more clock? No, games are won or lost on the field. Not in front of a urinal.Speaking of which, take a look at this quote too:
"There are a lot of things we don't do the same as other schools," (Alabama AD) Battle said. "The policy for a lot of schools has been undertesting and overpunishing."
If UGA is overtesting and overpunishing (a matter of debate, sure, but logic would dictate that a case could be made for both) that is its business. Personally, I do think we're over punishing. And I also recognize that I must somehow come to accept that because it's not going to change. Ever. UGA won't lower the standards. It's just not going to happen*.

Instead, as a Georgia fan, I have to come to accept it in some way. In the case of Alec Ogletree, the school's policy did not alter his behavior as much as fans would've preferred. Truly, that's his prerogative. But I can explain to my own kids the tenuous and constantly strained relationship between choices and consequences.

And I can do that without my neighbor knocking down my door and telling me I'm wrong.

*I suppose the President Morehead era could bring lots of changes, I just don't see a new drug policy for athletes being one. And besides, it's not just the President's office in play here.