Is the NCAA arbitrary? Alabama fans believe so and the current case involving a Georgia lineman raises the issue again.
Is the NCAA arbitrary? Alabama fans believe so and the current case involving a Georgia lineman raises the issue again.
The NCAA is arbitrary and capricious. It persecutes who it wills and rewards others. The case of Georgia’s Kolton Houston is the perfect example of how differently players are treated by the organization that is supposed to protect the integrity of college athletics.

The facts of the case are well known and widely reported. According to the Ledger-Enquirer, “When he was in high school, Houston was given injections to treat a shoulder injury. UGA athletic trainer Ron Courson has said the injections were from an ‘unscrupulous’ doctor, whose name is not known. So Houston tested positive for a steroid, Norandrolone, early in his freshman year at Georgia, which resulted in an automatic year-long suspension. The second positive test came prior to his second year at Georgia, which meant a lifetime NCAA suspension.”

On appeal, the NCAA reduced the lifetime ban. Thankfully, Houston can play once his steroid levels drop below NCAA-mandated levels. In an attempt to reach the limits, Houston has undergone medical treatments, but so far, he remains above the NCAA’s limits.

The defense is also widely reported. According to Online Athens, “Georgia maintains Houston was unknowingly given a substance that is banned by the NCAA — the anabolic steroid Norandrolone — after sustaining shoulder injuries playing for Buford High School.”

Also, this quote from Houston via the Ledger-Enquirer, “I’m just trying to argue that I’m not re-using. That I’m not re-using at all,” Houston said. “First of all I didn’t even know that I did use. And I’m surely not re-using.”


It worked for Cam Newton and Auburn.

It isn’t working in this case.


What is good for one player should be good for another. Yet, the NCAA has decided to approach this case of not knowing in a different manner.

For some reason, the NCAA has treated the accidental use of steroids while under medical supervision differently than it approached a father shopping his son for cash.

This makes it easy to figure out the NCAA’s calculus.



However, there surely is more to it than this. Could the NCAA’s treatment be based on the profile of the cases? Cam Newton was a quarterback in the middle of a national championship race. Kolton Houston is a lowly offensive lineman—and we all know linemen often only get their names called when they hold or move before the snap.

Or, is this a case where then NCAA looked so impotent in the Cam Newton case that it is trying desperately to butch up in cases like this?

Whatever, the NCAA’s treatment of players leaves much to be desired.

In an effort to correct the perceived injustice, a petition was launched. You can view the petition at the link. Essentially, it calls the NCAA to task for failing to live up to its mission and instead focusing on its bureaucratic rules instead of the student-athletes it is supposed to help, protect and develop.

29 thoughts on “Cam Newton defense doesn’t work for everyone; NCAA enforcement discriminates”

  1. Obviously the NCAA feels as if the steroids the player received, might give him an advantage on the field. It seems self-explanatory that the NCAA has a testing guideline that all the athletes must follow along with the PTs and doctors at each institution so that they too, do not cross the line of the allowable steroid amount; if an athlete is to undergo surgery or treatments. I fail to see why this player should be the exception. Since he is a minor, if anyone, his parents should be responsible for what goes into his body, seeing as that they are signing on to receive a scholarship and must follow the rules laid out by the clearing house, NCAA and institution the athlete chooses to enroll in. Remind me again how the cash Newton was supposedly shopped around for; gave him a competitive edge…

    1. So, in other words, slave trading is OK as long as athlete doesn’t know.

      1. Wow…can’t argue with that logic. Instead of dealing with “what if”s & innuendo, try to join us back here in the real world, where we deal with facts and hold people accountable.

        1. I am dealing with the real world since offering players for profit was slave trading when done in Memphis. 🙂

        2. Yeah, sure, barn holds people accountable. When it is convenient to do so, you hypocritical typical fucking barn fan.

        3. Hey Lee Bradberry Barner, I ever catch you or your boyfriends around my grandkids you will never have another thing to worry about.
          Get it, you freaking member of the pervert famblee?

    2. You are a fucking idiot. You are talking about a young man’s future, hopes and dreams, you moron.
      Drop freaking dead.

    3. @War Damn Eagle: I’m sorry, and I sincerely don’t mean to explicitly sound insulting, but please, please work on your grammar and punctuation. I have a nosebleed from trying to understand what you wanted to say, but I still don’t understand exactly what you wanted to say. There were a lot of big words and some kind of sentence structure that nobody, not even bona fide lawyers, actually speak with. It hurt my skull. I’m honestly sorry, but it’s too much.

  2. First off, Cam Newton did not break any rules. This kid did. Whether you want to believe that Cam was guilty or not, nothing was ever proven. Whether his dad shopped him around or not with or without his knowledge, no NCAA rule (at the time) was broken. Houston is a different story. He did break a rule. Whether he had knowledge or not, he did have steroids in his body that were banned substances. We are talking apples and oranges.

    1. This kid didn’t KNOW.

      Cam didn’t know. And his dad did shop him around, Auburn admitted as much in its NCAA pleadings.

      1. And yes, there were rules that shopping a player was illegal.

        According to this SEC by-law, pointed out by Internet douche Clay Travis:

        “If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.”

        1. Did anyone in his family receive or agree to receive money? Shopping may have occurred, but was money taken or agreed to be taken? Again, NCAA and SEC said “no”.

      2. Again, did Cam break a rule? The NCAA said “no”. There was not a rule in the NCAA bylaws about a third party shopping an athlete around at the time of the incident. There is now.

        Houston did break a rule. Whether he knew it or not, he had banned steroids in his body.

        You can argue what Cam did was wrong until you are blue in the face. The fact is, no rule was broken.

        You can argue that Houston didn’t know until you are blue in the face. The fact is, a rule was broken.

        1. The only people who believe Cam didn’t break a rule are Auburn fans and one or two bureaucrats in the NCAA.

          I wonder how many of those people are still in Indianapolis.

          1. In this case, I stand by what the NCAA said. The only people that believe that T-Town Tom was not paying players to appear at his store are Auburn fans Alabama fans and one or two bureaucrats in the NCAA. The fact is, there is no proof he was or is paying players.

            We have to go by facts, not opinions. My opinion is that Alabama is one of the dirtiest programs in the nation. Unfortunately for me, no facts have been uncovered to defend my opinion.

          2. The only people who believe the suit story were Auburn fans who published it and stalked Alabama players.

            Kind of pathetic, stalking kids and taking pictures of their cars, etc.

            I wonder if any of the Auburn fans sent any new packets to the NCAA like the Gadsden one?

          3. Fixed it for you.

            Rolling out a new comment system soon. Hope that it will allow people a little more freedom in editing/fixing things like that.

          4. Alot of people across the country believed the suit story. Trust me. However, I agree that the Gadsden deal was a bit of a stretch.

            We can agree to disagree on how Cam and the kid on steroids are similar.

          5. Funny thing about the Gadsden story, if I had gotten the packet earlier in the process, I would have published some portions of it.

            Once I did get it, there was much more context to its contents and quality of the “investigation.”

            On the other point, I see your point regarding competitive benefit. I think a good argument can be made that drugs make a greater impact than player shopping that probably happens much more than any of us fans want to admit.

            However, just to be difficult, I’m taking the NCAA’s typical position that a competitive benefit is having someone available to play who should not be playing.

            I think the intent to professionalize has some interesting elements to examine regarding Newton. It was clear that Newton’s parent had the intention of getting money. Even if Newton didn’t know, the NCAA had already backed away from athlete’s intent playing a role in reinstatement. That is why it was so perplexing the entire decision. Well, if we view it other than the SEC had lots of dollars at stake and good lawyers to press its case. 🙂

          6. Gibson————just curious, and in all sincerity, you mentioned it’s your personal opinion that Alabama under Nick Saban is the dirtiest program in all of college football. Do you mind elaborating? I don’t mean to sound like I’m condescending, so please keep that in mind, but in my opinion I think Alabama seems to be the perfect example of perhaps the best way to do things; hard work, physicality, mental toughness, perparation, strict policies, etc. I don’t mean their success on the field is the measure but the other intangibles such as character-building seem to matter as well. I don’t agree with the suit story even though I understand the argument, however is that what your opinion is based on for Alabama being the dirtiest program in the entire country?

    2. Gibson is right. Remember, Cam Newton didn’t break the rules. There was no rule against what happened.

      It wasn’t until the month AFTER he won the national championship that the rule was made and unanimously adopted in a voting committee by the NCAA about shopping your kid.

      Sheesh, people, stop trying to act like Cam Newton was playing college football after January 2011. Just because precisely what he did in 2010 would have made him ineligible now and forever more doesn’t mean it was against the rules.

      1. I think he was ineligible for a host of reasons. His family used an “agent/runner” to help shop him to schools. Use of an agent or contact with agent rep is a big no-no.

        Seriously, the runner detailed his involvement and contact with the family. IF that had been anyone else, that should have been enough to force him to sit out, etc.

        I’m not going to even get into the realm of child/parent. I think there was good enough evidence of what went on; however, I think Miss State got scared into silence….and I’m going to point my finger not at Auburn, but at the SEC office on that one. 🙂

  3. Wow…can’t argue with that logic. Instead of dealing with “what if”s & innuendo, try to join us back here in the real world, where we deal with facts and hold people accountable.

  4. Since when has a Barnfart ever lived in the real world? — Crickets! RTR!

  5. We can all go round and round on this carousel. The machine that is the NCAA knows where to pick its fight and when to butch things up.
    I ‘am not so sure that the kid is telling the truth. Nonetheless,If it can be proven that this story is true, and if this did occur when he was a minor then he should not be held accountable.

Comments are closed.