Georgia Bulldogs' Justin Houston Reportedly Tested Positive for Marijuana at NFL Combine
by T Kyle King on Apr 26, 2011 1:28 PM EDT
in Georgia Bulldogs Football
Email
PrintBy now, it is news to no one that Justin Houston reportedly tested positive for marijuana at the NFL Combine. My immediate reaction was one of surprise, considering (what I remembered as) Houston’s lack of a significant disciplinary history while in college.
That, however, was an instance of my middle-aged brain once again being forgetful, because I had forgotten that Houston was suspended two years ago for the Georgia Bulldogs’ season-opening tilts with the Oklahoma St. Cowboys and the South Carolina Gamecocks. Here is how the University explained Houston’s two-game suspension:
Two University of Georgia football players will incur suspensions due to violation of team rules, according to an announcement Saturday by Bulldog head coach Mark Richt. . . .
[R]edshirt sophomore defensive end Justin Houston has been suspended for two games. . . .
"I’m very disappointed in the poor judgment of these players," said UGA head coach Mark Richt. "They’ll have to pay an appropriate price and I’m confident they will learn an important lesson from their mistake."
Though the University’s official release gave no indication of the specific team rules Houston had violated, CBSSports.com stated in its NFL Draft profile of Houston that he "[w]as suspended in May 2009 for reportedly violating university substance abuse policy." It is the policy of the University of Georgia to impose a mandatory suspension for ten per cent of an athlete’s season for an initial positive drug test. In a twelve-game regular season, that translates (with rounding up) to two games.
Following his two-game suspension to start the 2009 campaign, Houston started ten games that autumn and started all 13 games in 2010. Given the toughness of the Bulldogs’ anti-drug policy, it is safe to say that, if CBSSports.com is right about the reason for his 2009 punishment, Houston did not fail a drug test after the end of the 2008-’09 academic year.
Is this embarrassing? Certainly, but the Florida Gators we ain’t. Whatever Houston did wrong in the spring of 2009, he either didn’t do again, or he didn’t get caught doing it again for the next two years. Before this morning’s news broke, that suggested strongly that Coach Richt’s hope that Houston had learned his lesson had been fulfilled. Here’s hoping this report, if accurate, serves as a reminder to Houston of what’s at stake, and here’s hoping this sort of thing doesn’t happen with Houston’s successor.
Regarding the latter point, I’m feeling pretty safe in assuming that Ray Drew doesn’t smoke weed. Hey, he’s a minister and a Charlie Daniels fan. If he said Willie Nelson was his favorite country musician? That might be a problem.
(Disclaimer: I saw Willie Nelson at the Classic Center in 2000. While at the show, I did not inhale. The first round of the 2011 NFL Draft starts at 8:00 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, April 28, and you may prepare for and follow the draft at SB Nation's NFL Draft Hub and NFL Draft weblog, Mocking the Draft.)
Go ‘Dawgs!
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Maybe...
I’ve become numb to these types of stories. Is this a huge deal?
While some may be concerned about a prospect’s work ethic or intelligence when they get busted for smoking pot prior to the combine, it’s only pot…
Hopefully, he’ll get his act together and be a solid pro.
As for being an embarrassment to the University, once again—it’s just pot.*
*It get it. It’s an illegal drug and should not be smoked, especially while playing college sports or before a combine. It’s simply not embarrassing. Being caught red-pantied—that’s embarrassing.
I am bi-winning. I win not only here but also there.
Not numb
It’s not that you’ve become numb. It’s that this is a non-story. Does anyone really care? NFL teams don’t care about this as long as it doesn’t rise to the level of Ricky Williams-esque. Brandon Tate tested positive in 2009 — he was drafted by the Patriots, a team that vets players and drafts as well as any team in the League. Harvin tested positive the same year. He still went in the first round.
The aim of these tests, I gather, is so that the teams are aware that if those players test positive again, there will be a suspension (I think you get one freebie in the NFL for marijuana, but if you test positive at the combine, first time as a pro you get a 4 game).
If Houston falls to the second round, it won’t be because of this.
by WindyCityDawg on Apr 26, 2011 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
It should NOT be smoked
It should be vaporized or made into brownies. The vapor has no smoke, and the brownies get you the munchies and the food in one swift bite. That is multitasking, and the only time that a man can actually accomplish multitasking, or he would be a woman.
by david.phineas on Apr 26, 2011 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I semi-agree ....
…. it is just pot (see my username!), but it could be called poor judgement or just plain ole stupidity. He prolly just cost himself some serious $$$,
It's a gas, gas, gas.
Not to defend Florida,
but it seems Muschamp is paying more than mere lip service to player discipline unlike his predecesor. Janoris Jenkins has been dismissed from the club.
"Dorsey Hill thinks when you die you go to Vince Dooley's house. He can't wait." --The Incomparable Lewis Grizzard
Takes a Georgia man to clean that program up.
by first and thom on Apr 26, 2011 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
True...
… but why would a Georgia man want to clean that program up?
(I hate Florida.)
by vineyarddawg on Apr 26, 2011 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Was he dismissed, or did he just decide to head to the NFL?
He probably saw how the ship is sinking with the new corch at the helm. You can’t mess with karma by dissing your alma, willy.
by david.phineas on Apr 26, 2011 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe we read it differently, . . .
. . . but this doesn’t sound like a dismissal to me:
“After meeting with Janoris Jenkins today, we both felt it was in his best interest to move ahead to the next stage of his career,” Muschamp said. “We appreciate Janoris’ contributions to the University of Florida during his time here and wish him the best of luck.”
A mutual decision “to move ahead to the next stage of his career” (read: the NFL) doth not a dismissal make, in my book.
Go 'Dawgs!
Me thinks that is Coach Boom's way of putting it nicely
My guess is that Janoris was put on Double Secret Probation after his arrest in January and this was his exit ticket.
Janoris probably isn’t a bad kid, just not a very smart kid.
No need to further smear his name and potential career.
I'd think a guy who supposedly wanted to send a message would, y'know, . . .
. . . send an actual message by making a decision and admitting he made a decision instead of saying they came to an understanding.
Maybe that’s just me, though.
Go 'Dawgs!
This is exactly the point
if you are a new corch, and committed to doing it the “Florida way”, then why not be open about dismissing him, gain some “street cred” with the boosters and football nation?
Unless of course, you had nothing to do with him leaving, then you say something sheepish like,
"After meeting with Janoris Jenkins today, we both felt it was in his best interest to move ahead to the next stage of his career," Muschamp said. "We appreciate Janoris’ contributions to the University of Florida during his time here and wish him the best of luck."
by david.phineas on Apr 26, 2011 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Precisely.
When Mark Richt, Nick Saban, and even Steve Spurrier kick guys off the team, they use the word “dismissed.” The fact that the word was not used in this instance suggests to me that “dismissal” is not an accurate characterization of what occurred.
Go 'Dawgs!
"And even Steve Spurrier"
Man. Another favorable tip of the hat to a Gator through and through compared to Muschamp. It’s getting more and more worrisome that we can say “Here’s the right thing to do; Spurrier did it. Here’s the wrong thing to do; Muschamp did it.”
What can I say?
A “Spurrier suspension” may be bogus, and it may not involve a player missing any actual game time, but at least it includes the word “suspension,” so that’s something.
Go 'Dawgs!
wait a second....
so a “suspension” from team related springtime activity but not missing any gametime is now more harsh than what is coined as a “mutual understanding” yet results in permanent removal from the team? Let’s not get too hung up in the semantics here. I would be willing to bet that if Janoris told Coach Boom “No, I want to stay and play my senior year” then the headline would have read differently. Muschamp did the right thing – he dismissed the player from the team for multiple incidents while trying to minimize humiliation to a young human being. Maybe you would have liked it more if Muschamp would have paraded around campus with Jenkins’ head on a stick, but I think the message was conveyed.
I have too much respect for you, skigator93, . . .
. . . to think you think I said anything of the sort. In fact, I very specifically noted that it was admirable that Mark Richt didn’t bash Zach Mettenberger when stating unequivocally that Mettenberger had been dismissed from the team. No one’s calling for heads to be placed on pikes; I’m simply suggesting that coaches should say what they mean and mean what they say, and that, if they want to send messages, they shouldn’t pussyfoot around about it by using political jargon.
I also didn’t equate a nominal suspension with a departure from the team; I pointed out merely that Steve Spurrier at least didn’t use equivocal language when calling it a suspension.
As for what you think Will Muschamp did, you know nothing of the sort. You may believe one thing, and I may believe another, but nothing anyone in authority in Gainesville has said indicates that this was a dismissal; that word is being used by bloggers and reporters, not by coaches or administrators. We don’t know that it wasn’t, but, based on the public statements that have been made, we certainly don’t know that it was.
Once again, I’m sorry if I’m offending y’all by disagreeing with your apparent belief that your head coach is a liar, but, until I’m given reason to believe otherwise, I’m going to take him at his word.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Apr 27, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you are focusing too much on a single Tweet
That’s why I don’t read them – they are too limited in characters to convey one’s actual thoughts.
Regardless of the process to get to this point, a senior potential All American will not be playing for my alma mater this coming season because he could not keep himself out of trouble. In the past you (and most of Dawgsorts) might have criticized our corch for not delivering a strong enough penalty. Now you criticize our corch for not stating the penalty in a strong enough way.
I guess there is no satisfying a rival when discussing the most despised program in the nation!
Sure there is!
Y’all could try losing to us more than three times in the next 21 years.
Look at how much less we (NCT excepted, of course) dislike Georgia Tech now that we beat them all the time! :)
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Apr 27, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
See why I just choose to say, "I hate Florida"...
… and be done with it? It clarifies one’s stance quite nicely.
by vineyarddawg on Apr 27, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
BTW, it is not illegal
you just think it is cause you have not read the law.
well
it might be illegal for some of you.
by david.phineas on Apr 26, 2011 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
C'mon man
I forgot all of you were lawyers, and I don’t want to argue. Of course it is the off season and nothing to keep us all entertained.
The “law” is either a federal one or a state one, which one would be the best to start with? BTW, I am not a lawyer, have never been to law school, etc. so go easy on me.
Hey, I'm just asking!
I’d never heard the argument that marijuana wasn’t illegal. (I’m assuming neither Justin Houston nor Janoris Jenkins has glaucoma and lives in Oregon.)
To which law were you referring when you made the above observation about “not read[ing] the law”? That, I suppose, is the law about which I’m asking. I’m not cross-examining you, I just haven’t heard such a case made.
Go 'Dawgs!
Sure, cannabis is not illegal at a base level for the common man
It is like every other God given right, unless you contract away those rights to be replaced by privileges. I will try to clarify, that I only know of one or two cases that were defended in a similar manner, but to be fair, the argument was not that cannabis is not illegal, but that the man was not subject to the Controlled Substances Act, 21USC13 due to it being non positive law. Not enacted, and only applying on Federal Territory, and also being only for registrants. Farmer Filburn is the basis used for most federal prosecutions, they just leave out the most important part of that case when they bring it, which is registering for a federal program.
The several cases using this defense have caused the judges to just sit on them for years, because they know if they rule, it will open up a big can.
The US CODE itself says that half the laws are not enacted and are not positive. A reading of the CSA and the coordinating CFR will show that the law itself only applies on federal territory, customs territory, etc. and not inside a constitutional state of the Union.
by david.phineas on Apr 26, 2011 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the argument, especially on Confederate Memorial Day, . . .
. . . but I’d be surprised if it flew very far.
By the way, I know a lawyer who uses the Joyce Kilmer defense whenever a criminal client of his is charged with “manufacture of a controlled substance; to wit: marijuana.” His contention is that, while you can “manufacture,” e.g., crack cocaine or crystal meth, you can’t “manufacture” a plant. “Only God,” he points out, “can make a tree.”
Go 'Dawgs!
Hee Haw
Good luck trying to get them to arrest God. Most lawyers that I talk to don’t recognize the difference in positive and non positive law. That is not an insult, just an observation. IF law school taught the difference, the courst would be much difference. Title 21 of the US Code is not law, it is private, special law that only applies to federal personnel. This defense is really a jurisdiction challenge, those codes are prima facie, and rebuttable based on the code and regulations themselves. It does work, the cases are thrown out or sealed, and definately not published.
by david.phineas on Apr 26, 2011 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
sorry for the spelling mistakes
the kids are showing me a dragonfly and the wife is needing me to burn some cow meat on the grill, so I am distracted, not “Justin Hou-stoning” while I type.
by david.phineas on Apr 26, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Regardless of federal law*, which I really don’t like to deal with, this would most likely be a matter of state law (if we were dealing with a criminal charge, which we’re not). Since this was at the combine, that would be Ind. Code 35-48-4-11. Having just read that law, how is this not illegal?
I may be entirely missing your point, but (like Kyle) I’ve never heard the defense that it’s not illegal, and I still don’t understand your basis for that claim.
*though I looked at the law you referred to (21 USCA 801 et seq), and still don’t know what you’re getting at.
"It'll only be reviewed because the guys up in the booth want to watch it a few times too." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf16_mw0nxs
since I deal with CFR's and
the accompanying FAR’s on a fairly regular basis, I’m most interested in how the CFR does not apply to a constitutional state of the Union.
Both Federal Contracts Law and the Internal Revenue Code are part of those CFR’s (which is where I normally interact with the CFR) and so far as I’ve seen (which is certainly not every single case) I’ve not seen any place where such a defense has been raised much less argued successfully.
/color me most curious
//for our military folks – the UCMJ is also part of the CFR’s
I can bake like a demon.
FAR's....
The bane of my existence…
I wish they made a “FAR’s for dummies”, reading some sections of it makes you think, “What monkey did they pay to make this crap up?”
"I will fly in the greatness of God as the marsh-hen flies, In the freedom that fills all the space 'twixt the marsh and the skies"
-Sidney Lanier, Poet and Writer from Georgia
by SurferLucas on Apr 26, 2011 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
We have to protect our children!
The federal marijuana prohibition is a prime example of a really BAD law. While we should never break any laws, the problem here isn’t that he broke a bad law it’s that the harmful, ineffective and counterproductive law is on our books in the first place!
The federal marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers $40 billion a year, generates 800,000 unnecessary arrests every year, diverts $10 billion a year to the Mexican drug cartels, is directly responsible for the death of more than 35,000 people in Mexico in just the last four years, and lures drug dealers into our neighborhoods selling their stinking weed to our children. And worst of all, it doesn’t even stop kids from smoking marijuana!
We need legal adult marijuana sales in supermarkets, gas stations and pharmacies for exactly the same reason that we need legal alcohol and tobacco sales – to keep unscrupulous black-market criminals out of our neighborhoods and away from our children. Marijuana should be legal to sell to adults everywhere that alcohol and tobacco are sold.
by Jillian Galloway on Apr 26, 2011 4:44 PM EDT reply actions
All of that may be true, . . .
. . . but, be all that as it may, the law is the law, and it’s reasonable to ask that the law be obeyed.
I’m not saying we ought to hang Justin Houston high (you should excuse the expression); it appears he handled himself pretty well for the last couple of years. All other things being equal, I’d rather folks steer clear of illegal substances, performance-enhancing or otherwise.
The laws saying you can vote, get married, and be drafted at 18 but can’t drink ‘til you’re 21 also are stupid, but they’re still laws.
Go 'Dawgs!
Render unto Caesar ...
(I’m at least a little disturbed that the phrase’s connection to Sgt. York is stronger in my mind than its connection to Jesus Christ.)
Good point
We should also stock the shelves at Kroger with assault rifles and cocaine so we can cut off the heads of those trafficking cartels as well! Of crouse these items should only be sold to adults.
Come on, skigator93.
The horrible habit some people have of likening weed to coke is one of the reasons some kids (and adults) get into so much trouble with the hard stuff. When we send the message that all those drugs are the same, the intent of the message is lost once it’s discovered that the part about weed was a lie.
You seem to be a great guy, but on this and the Jenkins thing, you’re showing a strong tendency to prefer the straw man approach over actual dialogue. I’ve seen you do better. (And, to be fair, I’ve seen myself do worse, but that doesn’t make it right.)
Before clicking on the link . . .
I just assumed it was Mike Pouncey and thought “well that explains a lot. He wasn’t snapping the ball 3 feet off target. He just didn’t know which Brantley to snap it to.”
by MaconDawg on Apr 26, 2011 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Check out this video
posted on Alligator Army. In a Sports Science clip, Mike Pouncy inexplicably snaps it right on target time and time again…even when game simulations are replicated by swinging a 300lb Janoris Jenkins toward him.
I’m not sure why this didn’t happen in the games last season – when considering mobility at least, John Brantley and the plywood structure with the hole in the middle are roughly equals.
I’m at a loss.
by skigator93 on Apr 26, 2011 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
