The University of Waterloo football program suspended due to Steroid Scandal

[Musashii]

http://www.tsn.ca/cis/story/?id=324605

The University of Waterloo has suspended its football program for a year in the wake of a steroids scandal called the "most significant" in Canadian university sports history.

The doping revelations stem from the spring arrest of Warriors receiver Nathan Zettler for possession and trafficking of anabolic steroids. That prompted the school to order the entire team be tested.

From the 62 urine samples collected, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport reported nine potential anti-doping infractions. They included four admissions of use, three positive tests and one refused test. A ninth case is pending additional police investigation, the CCES said.

The Warriors posted a 3-5 record last year to finish tied for sixth on points with Guelph in the 10-team OUA standings. They didn't make the playoffs.

[jvincent]

You know it's bad when players at a nerd school like Waterloo (full disclosure, I graduated from there) start using steroids.

[hugh]

So we know that 7 out of 62 took steroids. (maybe 9)

But why cancel the whole program? A little unfair to the other 55 clean players and the school.

Seems like a tremendous over reaction.

[jvincent]

My guess is that the university wants to show that there is zero tolerance, which is not a bad thing.

It is highly unlikely that with that many players using that the coaching staff and other players were unaware. I would expect to see some/all of the coaching staff replaced soon too.

[hugh]

Reminds me of the old expression "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"

I mean if five or six kids were found to be cheating on a final exam, would you throw out the results for hundreds of kids and make them take the course over?

Rather than showing a policy of zero tolerance, I sense the administration is just unwilling to admit to its own incompetence in overseeing the students and now is trying to "act tough"

[jvincent]

Well, in this case the coaching staff has the oversight responsibility. If there are no actions taken against the staff, then that is wrong.

[grog]

My initial reaction was the punishment seemed harsh and unfair but when you think about it how many of the other players were really "innocent"? Sure, most of them weren't on steroids but do you really believe most of them didn't even know about the players that were using? Maybe there were a few naive players but I find it very hard to believe that the only players aware of it were the ones actually using. So if a player knows one of his teammates is cheating (and thus benefiting the whole team) then is he not participating in the cheating by saying nothing?

However, I also agree that the staff should not be blameless in this either. You can't hold all of the players responsible but give the staff a free pass.

[Footballer]

Well, in this case the coaching staff has the oversight responsibility

You are right in that the coaching staff is definitely in charge, however I would point out that coaches do not have the resources to test their players. I do not know of any university that tests all of its athletes. So how is the coach or his staff supposed to know if his players are using any banned substances? Sometimes there are signs that a player is using steroids, other times not. You can never be certain until you do a test.

I would agree with Hugh that suspending the whole team is a knee jerk reaction and it punishes the players who were not doing anything wrong.

[hugh]

Whether other players suspected some guys of taking drugs or not is really irrelevant.

53 to 55 guys didn't take drugs. Rather than being punished, they should be heralded as decent young men who obeyed the rules.

By punishing 50+ innocent men, you have sent out the signal to athletes to never come forth with the truth because if you are honest and tell, you could be killing your career and your whole team as well.

[cooper83]

decent young men who obeyed the rules.

...by turning a blind eye?

[NB Josh]

Worst things have happened in the NCAA, for lesser offences. For example the USC football team can't go to a bowl game for the next couple years, even if they qualify, because of what Reggie Bush did five years ago (received illegal funding). Of course nobody from the USC team in question still goes to or is associated with USC.

Another good example in NCAA football is Southern Methodist, who got the 'death penalty' after it was found out that they had been giving their players illegal funds. They chose not to field a team in 1987 because the punishments were so severe. They have only started to recover now.

At least Waterloo stepped up and imposed sanctions on their own school, even if they were a bit harsh, most major American schools would never consider doing that.

[mr weather]

You can't compare the cheating of a handful of students in a final exam to 10+% of your team members taking juice.

Football (like any team sport) is all about the team. The occasional superstar may be good for the highlight reel but a team succeeds and fails as a group. The individual doesn't win the championship trophy, the team does.

I highly doubt nobody else on the team didn't know about what was going on.

A final exam is about one thing and one thing only: individual achievement.

[JohnnyCanuck]

Josh, the "Death Penalty" that was used on SMU is widely acknowledged to have been excessive and the NCAA has not used it since for programs that committed equal offences. And, you cannot compare a bowl ban to what Waterloo has done. Those kids still get to play football. Let's set aside all the mercenary reasons that star athletes in the NCAA play football ... of the 85 to 100 kids in the football program at USC, maybe 10 to 15 have any professional aspirations. Most still play the sport because they love it and a number of this because they love it and they get an education from the deal (not naive enough to suggest all ... but there's little question that a large percentage of student athletes are just that, "student" athletes). So, bowl ban or not, those kids still get to play football.

What Waterloo's done is break their word to every kid they recruited. Yes, Athletics department staff should be held accountable for what they knew or ought to have known. Athletes who tested positive should be punished. Athletes who actively participated in the distribution of PED's should be punished. But the rest of those kids deserve to have Waterloo meet the commitments the school made when they recruited them, or when those students chose Waterloo because of the football program instead of going to Western or some other school.

[NB Josh]

Johnny, I agree that what happened to SMU was excessive. I was just pointing out that worse punishments have happened before. What Waterloo did is probably a bit excessive too, but maybe they figure this is the best way to stop the problems that this team had.

I disagree with what you said about bowl games. Lets say that Waterloo did in fact field a team this year, but no matter how good they are they couldn't make the playoffs. That would be the comparable in the CIS to what happened to USC. Sure most players play for the love of the game, especially in the CIS, but for those who won't play pro in the NFL or CFL, a Vanier Cup is the biggest opportunity of their lifetime as far as football goes.

[markf]

By punishing 50+ innocent men, you have sent out the signal to athletes to never come forth with the truth because if you are honest and tell, you could be killing your career and your whole team as well.

I think this is what will end up happening if this is the precedence that is set. If you find out some of your teammates are cheating and the fear is your program will be done if it is discovered, you'll take your chances, keep your mouth shut and hope no one gets caught. I've played football on a team of 50+ players (at the high school level) and there is no way that every player knows what goes on with every other player. There were likely players left in the dark here until their careers were slammed shut on them.

There are so many issues surrounding this, some of which I don't know, but what happens if they do "tell" on a cheater? Do the universities devote the resources to have those alleged cheaters tested? Where does the allegation have to come from to be believed? An opponent, classmate or teammate? Are they allowed to test players based on allegations or do they need proof? Do you start testing everyone (big $$ that could be spend elsewhere in education)? What does the law allow here? What is some fly under the radar, then get caught? Is it still fair?

I think it's a reaction that goes overboard and something needs to give here. Allowing them to change universities now is nothing. I would assume all of these players are at school for the education and are happy to play football. If a few get a crack at the CFL, they'll be happy. So, why would they, after 3 or 4 years of education, switch schools, programs, lose connections, etc. just to play football because of a few cheaters? There is no justice for the 50+ clean players here, but someone is sitting up high judging the whole team for this.