Julmiste Kicked Off Team......

[Triple B]

 :  If we can't even handle KL's tame smack, we're in sorry shape.

Actually, we normally do a good job of handling K_L's lame smack but it is made tougher when one of our own fans feels the need to kiss the Kanigit's ass and chastise others when they point out out what a pathetic, obsessed loser he is...

[Knight_Light]

SB...double-check again with your Associate AD.

USF's new drug policy (all sports) calls for a 20% suspension for a 2nd failed drug test...which in football...only comes out to a 2 game suspension...down from a SIX Game suspension...when the penalty was 50% of any season.

SB..nevermind...here's Greg's blog on USF's new drug policy which started last fall (too late for the previous stoners)

September 12, 2006

Questions and, yes, even answers

I've been asking about suspensions to no avail since the first week of preseason practice, and Monday brought a significant step, with USF acknowledging that three players -- running back Ricky Ponton, receiver Jackie Chambers and defensive end Josh Julmiste -- were on "indefinite suspension" for an unspecified violation of team rules. The Bulls aren't confirming any specifics beyond that, so we don't know exactly when they'll be allowed to play again, but we know they won't be there for the Central Florida game on Saturday.

Since they've already missed two games, "indefinite" could mean just about anything, but if the suspensions are related to USF's since-amended substance abuse policy, it could mean another four games out for three key players. Under this year's policy, a second violation of the policy -- either a second positive drug test, or failure to comply with counseling requirements after a first positive -- results in suspension for 20 percent of the season. The fact that those three are still suspended after three games would seem to indicate USF is sticking with last year's penalty of a half-season, or six games, that is, if the suspensions are related to the substance abuse policy.

Sticking with the harsher punishment makes sense to me: USF is already getting flak for lowering its second-offense penalty from 50 to 20 percent, which associate AD Barry Clements explained in detail in Wednesday's paper. If they were to lessen the penalties on these three to this year's standard, it looks as if the penalty was lessened with an eye toward these suspensions, something Clements firmly denied.

If the three players are to miss six games, that would include USF's first two Big East games, key home contests against a hot Rutgers team and Connecticut. My next question is whether the Bulls would give Chambers a redshirt, since the junior has a year for the taking and his position is the deepest of the three impacted by these suspensions. Before fall drills, I'd asked Jim Leavitt about Chambers' recovery from the knee surgery he required after spring football, and he'd mentioned the possibility of a redshirt then. By comparison, running back and defensive end could use Ponton and Julmiste, and sooner than Oct. 14 against North Carolina for certain.

[Brad]

[Triple B]

SB...double-check again with your Associate AD.

USF's new drug policy (all sports) calls for a 20% suspension for a 2nd failed drug test...which in football...only comes out to a 2 game suspension...down from a SIX Game suspension...when the penalty was 50% of any season.

[smiley=loser.gif]

[knight_fan]

SB...double-check again with your Associate AD.

USF's new drug policy (all sports) calls for a 20% suspension for a 2nd failed drug test...which in football...only comes out to a 2 game suspension...down from a SIX Game suspension...when the penalty was 50% of any season.

[smiley=loser.gif]

Well I thought USF did the right thing when they made the players sit for the originally levied suspension.  I suppose some people would think it was due to media scrutiny or what not but we'll never know.  I'm not against the 20% rule since it is in line with the rest of the Big East (Note i haven't checked that fact).  But it does seem to be problematic that a lot of players have been getting a lot of chances but not making good on it.  And I think TripB is piling on to someone for agreeing with the veracity of that.  Big man, TripB's a big man or something.  

[KB]

Trip, If this is KL [smiley=loser.gif]...

then this is KF  [smiley=iamwithstupid.gif]

[Bullpride08]

SB...double-check again with your Associate AD.

USF's new drug policy (all sports) calls for a 20% suspension for a 2nd failed drug test...which in football...only comes out to a 2 game suspension...down from a SIX Game suspension...when the penalty was 50% of any season.

SB..nevermind...here's Greg's blog on USF's new drug policy which started last fall (too late for the previous stoners)

September 12, 2006

Questions and, yes, even answers

I've been asking about suspensions to no avail since the first week of preseason practice, and Monday brought a significant step, with USF acknowledging that three players -- running back Ricky Ponton, receiver Jackie Chambers and defensive end Josh Julmiste -- were on "indefinite suspension" for an unspecified violation of team rules. The Bulls aren't confirming any specifics beyond that, so we don't know exactly when they'll be allowed to play again, but we know they won't be there for the Central Florida game on Saturday.

Since they've already missed two games, "indefinite" could mean just about anything, but if the suspensions are related to USF's since-amended substance abuse policy, it could mean another four games out for three key players. Under this year's policy, a second violation of the policy -- either a second positive drug test, or failure to comply with counseling requirements after a first positive -- results in suspension for 20 percent of the season. The fact that those three are still suspended after three games would seem to indicate USF is sticking with last year's penalty of a half-season, or six games, that is, if the suspensions are related to the substance abuse policy.

Sticking with the harsher punishment makes sense to me: USF is already getting flak for lowering its second-offense penalty from 50 to 20 percent, which associate AD Barry Clements explained in detail in Wednesday's paper. If they were to lessen the penalties on these three to this year's standard, it looks as if the penalty was lessened with an eye toward these suspensions, something Clements firmly denied.

If the three players are to miss six games, that would include USF's first two Big East games, key home contests against a hot Rutgers team and Connecticut. My next question is whether the Bulls would give Chambers a redshirt, since the junior has a year for the taking and his position is the deepest of the three impacted by these suspensions. Before fall drills, I'd asked Jim Leavitt about Chambers' recovery from the knee surgery he required after spring football, and he'd mentioned the possibility of a redshirt then. By comparison, running back and defensive end could use Ponton and Julmiste, and sooner than Oct. 14 against North Carolina for certain.

Wow, that's seven lies for you instead of eight...so you've now redeemed yourself in your own silly pathetic mind I suppose.  Why don't you look up the article Greg references that quoted Barry Clements, and there it will explain the rules were changed BEFORE the players had their positive drug test.  The article also states how USF came about it's policy and it wasn't as you allege to get around the rules to get these boys eligible it was done by a very measured and calculated process in which it was discovered our previous policy was harsher then most 1-A schools, and a major drug counseling firm that stated a 20% suspension was more likely to help student athletes seek counseling versus over punishing and policy ruining their lives.

Check the root article and that will rebuff most of your allegations and claims.

[Bullpride08]

SB...double-check again with your Associate AD.

USF's new drug policy (all sports) calls for a 20% suspension for a 2nd failed drug test...which in football...only comes out to a 2 game suspension...down from a SIX Game suspension...when the penalty was 50% of any season.

[smiley=loser.gif]

Well I thought USF did the right thing when they made the players sit for the originally levied suspension.  I suppose some people would think it was due to media scrutiny or what not but we'll never know.  I'm not against the 20% rule since it is in line with the rest of the Big East (Note i haven't checked that fact).  But it does seem to be problematic that a lot of players have been getting a lot of chances but not making good on it.  And I think TripB is piling on to someone for agreeing with the veracity of that.  Big man, TripB's a big man or something.  

A lot of players or a few select individuals that can't seem to right their own ship.  The root of this thread, and KL's accusation centers around three players.  Out of 110 guys that's hardly a lot of guys.  They got themselves in this trouble and were given a chance, based on the rules and Code of Conduct to right the ship and they didn't take care of their opportunity.  That's life.

[USFPDiddy]

Would an Afroman mp3 sent be in bad taste?  Probably.

He screwed up.  We're going to have to let it go.

[Triple B]

Trip, If this is KL [smiley=loser.gif]...

then this is KF  [smiley=iamwithstupid.gif]

They just don't get it...

I've wondered, at times, at Brad's wisdom of continuing to allow them to post here, a board for USF fans, on a limited basis. I see now the method of his madness. The more he allows them to stick their noses in here, the more the intelligent among us can see what obsessed, pathetic losers they are.