|
|
Post by rockymtblue2 on Jan 8, 2021 13:29:15 GMT -5
Don't know if I'd feel good about playing Stanford without an indepth explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jan 8, 2021 13:56:57 GMT -5
Don't know if I'd feel good about playing Stanford without an indepth explanation. A long way from, "someone (not a player or coach) tested positive, so the whole enchilada is shut down for a couple of weeks." |
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on Jan 8, 2021 15:02:10 GMT -5
I think this sets a bad precedent. How many of the student athletes who will participate may be harboring the virus that has not yet bee detected?
|
|
|
|
Post by semper on Jan 8, 2021 15:26:25 GMT -5
Wow, this is crazy. Should not be allowed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2021 15:55:22 GMT -5
I think this sets a bad precedent. How many of the student athletes who will participate may be harboring the virus that has not yet bee detected? Agreed!! While we don't know all of the particulars; it does appear to possibly put other players and staff at higher risk of Covid exposure? I don't want any team or player to unnecessarily pause; even nasty Tennessee, but this appears to be cutting corners for ......?? |
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jan 8, 2021 16:06:07 GMT -5
Wow, this is crazy. Should not be allowed. We can put together a story that would satisfactorily explain it ... but the story should be told. Possible: We sent them home for the holidays, they had potential (or known) exposure while away and have not re-joined the team and had no contact with anyone in the Stanford Tier 1 group. If the story does go something like this, then they shouldn't return until they've been cleared with two consecutive negative tests at least 5 days after the last known possible exposure. |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Jan 8, 2021 16:30:18 GMT -5
Wow, this is crazy. Should not be allowed. We can put together a story that would satisfactorily explain it ... but the story should be told. Possible: We sent them home for the holidays, they had potential (or known) exposure while away and have not re-joined the team and had no contact with anyone in the Stanford Tier 1 group. If the story does go something like this, then they shouldn't return until they've been cleared with two consecutive negative tests at least 5 days after the last known possible exposure. don't think this works, swash. the announcement specifically says following their Jan. 3 game. so it was after any possible stay at home and seems connected to contacts in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jan 8, 2021 16:56:46 GMT -5
We can put together a story that would satisfactorily explain it ... but the story should be told. Possible: We sent them home for the holidays, they had potential (or known) exposure while away and have not re-joined the team and had no contact with anyone in the Stanford Tier 1 group. If the story does go something like this, then they shouldn't return until they've been cleared with two consecutive negative tests at least 5 days after the last known possible exposure. don't think this works, swash. the announcement specifically says following their Jan. 3 game. so it was after any possible stay at home and seems connected to contacts in the game. Yeah, it makes me squeamish, too. Maybe adjust from home for the holidays to "away from the team" and possibly exposed and remained separated from the other members of the Team's Tier 1 group. Also the "following the game" could be interpreted as "resulting from" which would be entirely unacceptable, but it could be meant more like "after our contact with them was over", this happened ... Perhaps to make it clear that opponent shouldn't need to quarantine all of their players. I agree that all this discussion seems like we're working awfully hard to find a way that isn't ... terrible. Let's hope that there is a good answer. |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Jan 8, 2021 17:36:40 GMT -5
don't think this works, swash. the announcement specifically says following their Jan. 3 game. so it was after any possible stay at home and seems connected to contacts in the game. Yeah, it makes me squeamish, too. Maybe adjust from home for the holidays to "away from the team" and possibly exposed and remained separated from the other members of the Team's Tier 1 group. Also the "following the game" could be interpreted as "resulting from" which would be entirely unacceptable, but it could be meant more like "after our contact with them was over", this happened ... Perhaps to make it clear that opponent shouldn't need to quarantine all of their players. I agree that all this discussion seems like we're working awfully hard to find a way that isn't ... terrible. Let's hope that there is a good answer. Sounds as if you have a PhD in classical philosophy, swash. I don't have a colleague in the field who could have parsed that better.  |
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jan 8, 2021 21:28:18 GMT -5
Yeah, it makes me squeamish, too. Maybe adjust from home for the holidays to "away from the team" and possibly exposed and remained separated from the other members of the Team's Tier 1 group. Also the "following the game" could be interpreted as "resulting from" which would be entirely unacceptable, but it could be meant more like "after our contact with them was over", this happened ... Perhaps to make it clear that opponent shouldn't need to quarantine all of their players. I agree that all this discussion seems like we're working awfully hard to find a way that isn't ... terrible. Let's hope that there is a good answer. Sounds as if you have a PhD in classical philosophy, swash. I don't have a colleague in the field who could have parsed that better. LOL. Mom's a teacher, dad's a preacher. No PhD, though I do work with a lot of them. |
|
