Starting SS Burnett ineligible for bowl

[Bullpride08]

...

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF Lack of discipline

Suspending 3 starters for 6 games/half the season.

Coach didn't have a choice...That was an Athletic University rule if an athlete FAILED 2 Drug Test, they HAD to be suspended for 50% of the teams games (6 games in football).

Leavitt, Woolard, etc...were able though to change the new rule for all drug tests starting in last Sept...and if any USF Football player that fails 2 drug tests now, they will only miss 2 games, instead of 6.

Leavitt and Woolard pushed that through?  Cite?

Think about it...which USF team got hurt the most from the 50% suspensions from 2 failed drug tests?

Football.

Then...after those players failed their 2nd drug test...Woolord, Clements, Walz and Sports Medicine decided on their own (as was "published") that the penalty should DROP in Football from 6 game suspension to just 2 game suspension WITHOUT feedback from Leavitt?

Ah...ok.

Actually you are wrong KL, the policy was changed before those players failed their initial drug test.  It was actually changed in the spring so it would more closely resemble the policy used by our conference brethren.  The reason those players didn't fall under the new policy was because their failed drug test occurred BEFORE the start of the 06-07 calendar school year which was when the new rule took effect thus their punishment had to be based on the old rule of 50% of the games played.  This was the reason they petition because their failed tests occurred during the summer, and the argument was the old rules didn't apply since their test occurred after the last school year concluded.  The rules committee didn't agree and stuck with the old punishment.

I don't know why we've got to explain it since it was well documented and articulated in the media, however you chose to ignore the facts of the case and draw your own conclusion.  I hope this helps before you start trying to rattle off ridiculous accusations.  BTW, Leavitt had nothing to do with the change in policy it was completely Woolard's doing (remember this was for all the athletic department not just football).  He made the decision after consulting with the Conference Office, and a National Narcotics Organization that helped the NCAA and schools to impliment their policies.  They recommended that on a 2nd offense the 50% suspension was to harsh and could deter offenders from seeking help and counseling.  Again, this was also articulated in an article written by the St. Pete Times.

Sorry, but Woolard and Leavitt didn't 'get together' and try to find ways to skirt the system.  Our new policy is one that mirrors that of all our Conference Members and many other 1-A schools.