so when is the trial date

[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.

Unless USF comes to their senses and ponys up some big time dough, Leavitt will win this big and then you're going to have a lot of crow to eat.  You'll probably slink off and not show up on this board, though.

9

[USF_Grouper]

Unless USF comes to their senses and ponys up some big time dough, Leavitt will win this big and then you're going to have a lot of crow to eat.  You'll probably slink off and not show up on this board, though.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager that it gets settled and the sums aren't publically disclosed.  If that isn't the case, and it goes to trial, you never know -- anything could happen.  I am anything but a contract lawyer (and I would wager most of the people chiming in on this thread aren't either).  I don't think USF has much to worry about in regards to the termination being justified, but he may get hung up on some kind of minor contractual issue (we didn't ahve a pre-termination chat, we didn't put the termination letter in a double sealed envelope, it wasn't printed on 100% recycled paper, etc).  Who knows how much that will come out to, but if CJL feels he is entitled then I don't blame him, he should be in court working toward that end.

[Triple B]

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?

It should be practical in a case like this where you've got such a shoddily put together 'final" report. The report has the feel of a BM investigative article and we all know how much his background work usually sucks.One thing that has jumped out, for me, for a while is the "most powerful man in the building" quote. It's noted at least four times in the report, with one player saying, after he read about it, that it upset him pretty good .... Yet, Joel is on record saying he doesn't know where that came from. Somebody's lying somewhere. The report makes a point of poo-pooing the possibility that some may have had a problem with Leavitt that could affect testimony .... they may have been a bit naive in that regard. I don't blamt the Leavitt camp one bit for wanting to see everything.

[USF_Grouper]

Let's see the full report and what USF is hiding then we can revisit the issue.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you define what a full report is.  Do you mean like the complete transcript of every individual they talked with, as well as all e-mail and audio conversations between the investigators?  That would not normally be defined as part of a "report".  A report is, generally, a summary with conclusions -- touches on the highlights.

If you mean what someone else mentioned, a more detailed discussion of the "other issues" that are elluded to, it would seem we are making a big deal out of nothing.  If you talk to enough people inside an organization someone is going to say "oh yeah and the secretary takes  1.5 hour lunch break instead of the authorized 30 minute" or something equally uninteresting.  These are hardly issues that will be included in the report, investigated at this level, or consume the time of Genshaft of Woolward.  However, if they came to light they would be reported to the appropriate authority.  It is also possible there where potential NCAA infractions uncovered.  This isn't unusual.  Generally schools self-report a good number of infractions that get discovered through internal controls.  If those came up they would be reportedt hrough compliance (likely already have). 

So I guess I am just still a bit unclear.  You just feel like this isn't the complete report because of its conclusion?

[cmhatter]

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 obligation do they have to produce SPECIFIC, PRIVATE, witness statements to the general public?

those players/coaches were guaranteed that their statements would remain anonymous...

usf is doing the right thing.

[Triple B]

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 obligation do they have to produce SPECIFIC, PRIVATE, witness statements to the general public?

those players/coaches were guaranteed that their statements would remain anonymous...

usf is doing the right thing.

I would think they'd be legally obligated if the party done harm by the summarized report wants to see the specifics to make sure the summary is complete and accurate... and I don't think the coaches were guaranteed anything since they are already quoted in the report and the SA's could still be ID'd by A, B, C, etc, just show the complete transcripts of the interviews. One thing to come out would be who first threw out the "most powerful man in the building" quote and then go on to see what other stuff could have been fabricated by that person.

[cmhatter]

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 obligation do they have to produce SPECIFIC, PRIVATE, witness statements to the general public?

those players/coaches were guaranteed that their statements would remain anonymous...

usf is doing the right thing.

I would think they'd be legally obligated if the party done harm by the summarized report wants to see the specifics to make sure the summary is complete and accurate... and I don't think the coaches were guaranteed anything since they are already quoted in the report and the SA's could still be ID'd by A, B, C, etc, just show the complete transcripts of the interviews. One thing to come out would be who first threw out the "most powerful man in the building" quote and then go on to see what other stuff could have been fabricated by that person.

i think leavitt's camp wants it PUBLIC... not to see if the summary is complete and accurate.

my guess is that both parties are playing legal chess.

[SANJAY]

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 obligation do they have to produce SPECIFIC, PRIVATE, witness statements to the general public?

those players/coaches were guaranteed that their statements would remain anonymous...

usf is doing the right thing.

My recollection of the public records law is that include those interviews including any notes or transcripts are public with redactions to protect names of students.  An argument could be made that those are attorney work-product (of the counsel USF retained to conduct the investigation), but I do not know if this would fit the definition of being work product performed for pending or threatened litigation which is an exception to the public records law.  Have to imagine that Leavitt's lawyers have requested this, tha a response has been provided and if those documents were claimed as protected then you can expect a separate hearing on whether those documents are required to be produced.

[Triple B]

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 obligation do they have to produce SPECIFIC, PRIVATE, witness statements to the general public?

those players/coaches were guaranteed that their statements would remain anonymous...

usf is doing the right thing.

I would think they'd be legally obligated if the party done harm by the summarized report wants to see the specifics to make sure the summary is complete and accurate... and I don't think the coaches were guaranteed anything since they are already quoted in the report and the SA's could still be ID'd by A, B, C, etc, just show the complete transcripts of the interviews. One thing to come out would be who first threw out the "most powerful man in the building" quote and then go on to see what other stuff could have been fabricated by that person.

i think leavitt's camp wants it PUBLIC... not to see if the summary is complete and accurate.

Not sure what you mean by PUBLIC. If you're refering to the SA's names being revealed, that's not going to happen, I don't think ... What other advantage would making it public have other than checking the accuracy of the final report?

[2000bull]

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 obligation do they have to produce SPECIFIC, PRIVATE, witness statements to the general public?

those players/coaches were guaranteed that their statements would remain anonymous...

usf is doing the right thing.

I would think they'd be legally obligated if the party done harm by the summarized report wants to see the specifics to make sure the summary is complete and accurate... and I don't think the coaches were guaranteed anything since they are already quoted in the report and the SA's could still be ID'd by A, B, C, etc, just show the complete transcripts of the interviews. One thing to come out would be who first threw out the "most powerful man in the building" quote and then go on to see what other stuff could have been fabricated by that person.

i think leavitt's camp wants it PUBLIC... not to see if the summary is complete and accurate.

Not sure what you mean by PUBLIC. If you're refering to the SA's names being revealed, that's not going to happen, I don't think ... What other advantage would making it public have other than checking the accuracy of the final report?

Perhaps releasing ALL of the report.  USF held back parts of the investigation and interviews.  We can only assume thery were not favorable to USF's agenda.

Isn't the old saying, you should never AssUMe?  ;D