Quote: 


As the poster stated above, those tests were university drug tests. Those tests were not given by the NCAA. If they were NCAA tests, those two would have been suspended one year like everyone before them.


 

This is the NCAAs mission statement: Core Purpose: Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.


The NCAAs job is not, and never has been, to monitor and oversee every aspect of student-athletes lives. I'm sure we all agree beating women, doing drugs, and drinking while driving is wrong. However, it is not the NCAAs job to hand out punishment. If someone beats a woman and only gets a 1-game suspension, complain to the school. Since beating a woman does not fall under the NCAAs duty to "govern completion in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner", do not expect them to punish such behavior.

 

I dont really care what the NCAA says their job is.  If they wanted to discourage domestic violence they could.  And they could make it part of their mission statement   It's not as though they were forced into that mission and must abide by it.  But they've chosen to hand that responsibility to the individual schools.  And instead force a somewhat severe and very black/white ruling on performance enhancing drugs... which btw is a risk that only impacts the player who decides to use them.  And affects no one else.  Unlike domestic violence.

---