What We Can Learn From The Will Grier Incident At Florida

Two big surprises happened last week related to Florida Gators’ football.  

First, former exalted player and coach Steve Spurrier resigned from his position at South Carolina. You would think that would grab the Gator headlines. But the news of the Head Ball Coach was eclipsed by someone who was playing the same position that won Spurrier the Heisman – and leading the team to a surprisingly undefeated season under first-year coach Jim McElwain.

At an emotional press conference on the Monday after the Gators scored another unexpected win, redshirt freshman quarterback Will Grier admitted that he had taken a performance-enhancing substance without knowing it, but also without consulting the Gators’ medical staff before he took it. The test results were allegedly known to Florida’s athletic department before the Missouri game, but NCAA rules allow the player to have a second test before punishment is dispensed, leaving Grier eligible to play in the game, contrary to some assertions otherwise.

Here are the facts as we know them:

What did Grier do?

He tested positive for a banned supplement that was an ingredient in an over-the counter product he took. The test was taken under the NCAA’s year-round testing policy, which can require testing as many as three times a year at any institution with little-to-no notice.  It has been reported that Grier purchased the product in June and was likely tested in early October.

What is the substance?

Nothing definitive has been reported as of the time of publication.  One journalist, Amanda Wood who writes for Scout, tweeted a firsthand account of being in a Complete Nutrition store on June 7 where a store representative told her that he had just sold Will Grier a supplement called “L3 Terminus” which has a warning not to use if under anti-doping restriction. Other sources say the offending substance was a supplement called “Ligandrol”. Florida has said that it would not disclose specifics of the substance without Grier’s permission.

What is the testing process?

According to the NCAA’s 2015-16 Drug-Testing Program brochure, the lab first uses sample A which is identified by bar code, not by name. Upon a positive finding, the code is used to determine the student-athlete’s name and reported to the institution. According to the brochure, schools are notified by a call to the AD, who will also receive a letter or an e-mail marked “confidential”. The institution then notifies the student-athlete.

The AD will be advised of the testing of Sample B and the institution and/or student-athlete can request to be present when that sample is opened for testing.

Sample B results are final. Upon notification of a positive Sample B result, the institution must declare the student-athlete ineligible and withhold participation in all intercollegiate competition.

(Interestingly, under Rule 8.2.4.3 of the Drug-Testing Program, if the next competition is imminent and the institution requests it, the NCAA will make a “good-faith reasonable effort to hear the appeal before the student-athlete’s next contest”. According to this writer’s research, no such attempt was made by Florida.)

Did Grier know?

This may be the double-edged sword: according to the NCAA, a standard of criminal law applies: “Ignorance is no defense”. But there are exceptions that primarily deal with Florida’s efforts to educate their players about banned substances. But those exceptions, if found to have contributed to Grier’s mistake, could lead down a path to the dreaded “institutional control” sanctions.

When did Florida know?

This question could be critical to the appeal and whether the institution itself will be subject to any penalties. Here are the facts as reported by various media outlets:

McElwain has said that he was informed of the results on Sunday night the day after the Missouri game.

At least one site related to Gator football reports a tweet on October 10 around 9 p.m. (during the Missouri game) by “JokerSloth” which, even if a joke, is prophetic: “Enjoy tonight cuz a[sic] its our favorite player’s last game for a calendar year. Roids.”

Some sources point to Grier’s substantial weight gain. An Atlanta paper reported that Grier weighed 172 pounds when he enrolled at Florida and now weighs 215, although these numbers have been vehemently disputed and, even when not, point to the transformation that most college players’ bodies go through once they enter a school’s training program.

A Sports Illustrated article mentions that “wealthy Power Five schools” track diets and calories and encourage supplements that are not on the banned list. Whether that close supervision indicates that Florida “should have known” will likely be a question in the appeal as well.



What is the penalty?

Pending a successful appeal, the penalties are automatic and strict: one full year of eligibility is lost (25 percent of total eligibility) and the student-athlete must be withheld from competition for a full calendar year.

For a second positive test, the penalty is stricter for PEDs than for street drugs: for street drugs, the penalty is another year of ineligibility and another year of prohibition from competition; for PED usage, the student is declared permanently ineligible. (Ironically, Treon Harris, who will take over the reins from Grier, was suspended for one game earlier this season for “violation of team rules” which many interpreted, including an ESPN report, as testing positive for marijuana.)

Media outlets seem to disagree on Grier’s remaining eligibility when he returns but SB Nation reports based on an explanation from NCAA compliance expert John Infante: “Athletes have five years to play four seasons but Grier will have five years to play three”. Essentially, he was a redshirt freshman before the suspension. The penalty means that he is essentially now a sophomore and will be a junior when he returns.

Grier may practice with the team but may not travel to away games.

What is the appeal process and possible outcomes?

An appeal must be filed within 45 days of the positive test, along with any supporting evidence that Florida plans to submit. A detailed summary of the grounds for the appeal and Florida’s drug prevention education program must be filed at least five days before the hearing.

The hearing is held via telephone conference attended by the student-athlete, Florida officials and at least three members of the NCAA Drug-Education and Drug-Testing subcommittee of the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of the Sport. “If a member of the subcommittee is employed by a member institution  belonging to the same athletics conference of the appealing institution, the subcommittee member will not hear the appeal.” One current member is Kimberly Walpert, Team Physician at Georgia, so she should be ineligible under this rule.

Florida AD Jeremy Foley or an approved representative must participate in the call. McElwain is not required to participate but his attendance will be requested. The school and/or the athlete may have other representatives on the call such as an attorney with prior notice to the NCAA. The subcommittee “prefers” to not know the name of the institution, athlete or representatives of the athlete during the call.

While Florida representatives have been quoted as saying they feel “relatively good” about winning an appeal, or at least shortening Grier’s sentence, the facts say that the odds are against them. Just ask Mark Richt: In 2010 Georgia’s Kolton Houston tested positive for Nandrolone, an anabolic steroid. He presented extensive documentation that a doctor injected it to treat a shoulder injury while he was in high school. The NCAA refused to let him play for three years until the presence of the drug tested below the minimum threshold, citing that leniency would compromise the integrity of NCAA drug-testing policies.

What can ADs do?

The NCAA spends over $5 million each year on drug testing and education. With kind of investment, it expects each school to vigilantly control the behavior of its athletes through education and monitoring. Of course, in Grier’s case, even if the AD’s and coach’s office had made the rules emphatically clear, according to all sources, it was Grier who failed to clear the substance with medical officials before taking it.

When players ignore the rules resulting in a positive drug test, the ADs hands are tied except the usually futile appeal process. The myth of Sisyphus may be a good analogy. In most cases, the best possible outcome is to avoid the gray area that finds the school to be complicit to the extent that loss of institutional control is sanctioned. To rule otherwise set a precedent that ignorance on the part of player and the school is a defense to a banned drug test.