so when is the trial date

[smazza]

how many of you will be in gallery cheering usf on

[Triple B]

how many of you will be in gallery cheering usf on

Scott Carter reporting the hearing as been moved to unspecified date

[Triple B]

Public-records hearing on Leavitt case June 9

Attorneys for former USF football coach Jim Leavitt will present their case to make public the records from USF's investigation that led to his firing during a hearing in Hillsborough County Circuit Court on June 9.

Four key USF administrators, including President Judy Genshaft and athletic director Doug Woolard, have been served subpoenas to testify at the public-records hearing, according to Leavitt's attorney, Wil Florin. Steven Preveaux, USF's general counsel, has also been subpoenaed according to Florin, along with Sandy Lovins, USF associate vice president for human resources, who oversaw the university's investigation along with an outside attorney. Leavitt may testify at the hearing as well, and additional hearings for the lawsuit have been scheduled in court for July 27-28.

Leavitt was fired in January after USF's investigation found that he committed "serious violations" of the university's conduct policies. The investigation found that he grabbed walk-on running back Joel Miller by the throat and slapped him in the face twice during USF's Nov. 21 game against Louisville, then lied to investigators and interfered with the investigation. Leavitt has denied all the charges against him.

Leavitt's attorneys have since filed a lawsuit against USF, and the public-records hearing is a preliminary part of their case, asking that all notes, e-mails, interview transcripts and recordings be made public. The Times has also filed public-records requests seeking the same documents, but USF has not released anything beyond its original 33-page summary.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/usf/

[smazza]

home alumni never forget what leavitt is doing to usf

[cmhatter]

home alumni never forget what leavitt is doing to usf

Leavitt didn't do anything.  It was Genshaft, Woolard and some high profile booster that did.  In the end, that's what will be remembered.

for some reason i doubt that either will be remembered.

leavitt got himself fired but long term i don't see everyone remember leavitt for his lawsuit

[Carolina_Bull]

USF should kick him some cash and let him go forward as if he cleared his name.  In exchange, Leavitt should promise to not defame the university.

USF stands to lose serious cash in the future if it is estranged from Leavitt.  Just imagine the 25 year anniversary if leavitt is on the outs.

Just like Cleveland in 1995 telling the departing football team they wouldn't litigate if the Browns name and history stayed in Cleveland, USF needs to be forward thinking enough to tell JL they'll go easy if he lightens up and lets USF Athletics proudly chronicle the Jim Leavitt era.

Plus I think JL will come cheap since he wants to coach again.

[USF_Grouper]

USF should kick him some cash and let him go forward as if he cleared his name.  In exchange, Leavitt should promise to not defame the university.

USF's first priority should be to its student athletes.  If an investigation concluded that Leavitt assaulted a player, I think it would be grossly unfair to the player to then suddenly step away from that conclusion and let Leavitt go forward as if his name was cleared.  It may make financial sense, but it doesn't seem far to the most valuable assett our football team has -- which despite popular myth, was never a head coach.

[USF_Grouper]

USF should kick him some cash and let him go forward as if he cleared his name.  In exchange, Leavitt should promise to not defame the university.

USF's first priority should be to its student athletes.  If an investigation concluded that Leavitt assaulted a player, I think it would be grossly unfair to the player to then suddenly step away from that conclusion and let Leavitt go forward as if his name was cleared.  It may make financial sense, but it doesn't seem far to the most valuable assett our football team has -- which despite popular myth, was never a head coach.

If that is in fact what the report concluded then why does USF still refuse to make the entire report public?

What is the entire report?  I remember a fairly lengthly PDF file that contained a detailed discussion as well as conclusions.  What is missing?  I admit, I don't look as deeply into this as others, I am not searching for some great conspiracy.

[USF_Grouper]

http://curezone.com/upload/PDF/Enclosure_1_Leavitt_Review_Final1.pdf

To my knowledge, that is the final report.  What is it you are asking?  Why USF wont replace "Student Athlete A" with an actual student name?  I thinkt he asnwer to that is obvious.  Do you want the complete notes and transcripts of interviews that are the investigators collected to make the report?  Do you think that is customary or practical?

There must be something I am missing -- but there is 33 pages of fairly detailed discussion and analysis.  Conculsions #4, #5, #6, #9, #10, & #11 would each independently be sufficient to remove a head coach, in my opinion.  Further, the issue of retaliation is discussed toward the end of the report which I believe is also more than sufficient cause for termination.  All of these issues combined, in my opinion, left USF administration with little to no choice but to terminate him as head coach.  The crazy conspriacy non-sense (they wanted a new coach...) just seems silly.

[slick1ru2]

http://curezone.com/upload/PDF/Enclosure_1_Leavitt_Review_Final1.pdf

To my knowledge, that is the final report.  What is it you are asking?  Why USF wont replace "Student Athlete A" with an actual student name?  I thinkt he asnwer to that is obvious.  Do you want the complete notes and transcripts of interviews that are the investigators collected to make the report?  Do you think that is customary or practical?

There must be something I am missing -- but there is 33 pages of fairly detailed discussion and analysis.  Conculsions #4, #5, #6, #9, #10, & #11 would each independently be sufficient to remove a head coach, in my opinion.  Further, the issue of retaliation is discussed toward the end of the report which I believe is also more than sufficient cause for termination.  All of these issues combined, in my opinion, left USF administration with little to no choice but to terminate him as head coach.  The crazy conspriacy non-sense (they wanted a new coach...) just seems silly.

Leavitt's dog wants all the investigation notes and testimony. Like its been said elsewhere, there might be something else Leavitt did that they don't want the NCAA to know about until they investigated it themselves further or more likely something else he did against school policy was turned up and since it is not listed as a formal reason they fired him, they are waiting to release at trial so it can be included in consideration for the jury. If you go back to the final report, there is a line that says other matters that were brought up by witnesses will be investigated by the appropriate USF service.  They want that to be included as icing on the cake.