2. MADISON, Wis. -- University of Wisconsin athletes who are arrested for incidents involving drugs, gambling or violence will be suspended from all competitions and practices under a new policy announced by the school Thursday. "The policy will guide us as a department when we are faced with student-athletes who find themselves in difficult situations,'' football coach and soon-to-be athletic director Barry Alvarez said. Until now, it has largely been left up to individual coaches to decide how their players were disciplined. Badgers have been involved in a number of run-ins with the law over the past year. Former Wisconsin hockey captain Brad Winchester pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery after a barroom brawl in which he punched a police officer. Top football receiver Lee Evans was sentenced to 12 months probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor marijuana possession, and running back Anthony Davis pleaded guilty to battery after a fight with his girlfriend in which he was stabbed in the leg. "We have high expectations for our student-athletes for their athletic and academic abilities as well as for their good citizenship,'' Chancellor John Wiley said. "It's important to have consistency and to communicate clearly our institutional expectations.'' Suspended athletes will have to be cleared by the courts or reinstated by an appeals committee before becoming eligible to play again. But suspended athletes will still have access to the academic center, weight room and sports medicine facility. Those who break team rules on alcohol consumption but don't violate the law will be subject to penalties by each sport. Under the policy, athletes can appeal suspensions to a committee comprised of the athletics director, athletics board chairman, a senior athletics staff member, a head coach and a member of the student-athlete advisory committee. Wisconsin head coaches will maintain their own team disciplinary policies. Posted Thursday, August 21 Policy focuses on arrests for drugs, gambling, violence

3. University of Vermont Moves Toward Becoming a Dry Campus Burlington Free Press (VT) May 4, 2006 University of Vermont students old enough to drink alcohol will no longer be able to imbibe in any campus residence hall starting in the fall. Administrators informed students last month of the new policy that is meant to send a message that alcohol consumption is not tolerated on a campus where incidences of binge drinking and drinking-related offenses are on the increase, according to recent university police statistics. "The residence halls are not the place for alcohol," UVM Provost John Bramley said Wednesday. "We've been aggressive about enforcement issues and educational issues. In the final analysis, we have to do everything we can to discourage students from dangerous sets of behaviors and to encourage positive ones." About 5,000 students, mostly freshmen and sophomores, will live in UVM residence halls in the fall. About 7 percent of students living on campus are 21 or older and would be affected by the new policy, said Annie Stevens, UVM's assistant vice president for student and campus life. At UVM, students who are old enough to drink may do so inside most dorm rooms on campus, but three residence hall floors and a house on the Redstone Campus are UVM4B UVM to ban alcohol Drinking will be prohibited in all on-campus dorms this fall, regardless of students' age University of Vermont students old enough to drink alcohol will no longer be able to imbibe in any campus residence hall starting in the fall. Administrators informed students last month of the new policy that is meant to send a message that alcohol consumption is not tolerated on a campus where incidences of binge drinking and drinking-related offenses are on the increase, according to recent university police statistics. "The residence halls are not the place for alcohol," UVM Provost John Bramley said Wednesday. "We've been aggressive about enforcement issues and educational issues. In the final analysis, we have to do everything we can to discourage students from dangerous sets of behaviors and to encourage positive ones." About 5,000 students, mostly freshmen and sophomores, will live in UVM residence halls in the fall. About 7 percent of students living on campus are 21 or older and would be affected by the new policy, said Annie Stevens, UVM's assistant vice president for student and campus life. At UVM, students who are old enough to drink may do so inside most dorm rooms on campus, but three

4. Posted on Wed, Aug. 03 USC's revised drug policy gives athletes more chances Instead of '2 strikes' rule, players can test positive 4 times before dismissal USC first-year athletics director Eric Hyman says the revised policy is fairer than the “two strikes” clause. Arkansas coach Houston Nutt said coaches want to see a “level playing field.” “I can live with just about anything. I’d hate to see a ‘one strike, you’re out.’ I wouldn’t be for that, naturally,” Nutt said recently. “‘Three strikes, you’re out’ or the ‘fourth one, you’re out,’ that’s fine with me.” Under the revised policy, Hyman will be more involved in the process when an athlete tests positive. “I don’t want to delegate that to somebody else. I feel I’ve got to give it my best shot, too.” USC first-year athletics director Eric Hyman says the revised policy is fairer than the “two strikes” clause. “I’ve dealt with this for many years, and that’s pretty restrictive,” Hyman said Tuesday. “You can’t be carte blanche, either. There needs to be some punitive action that takes place. People make mistakes. The key is to learn from them.”

5. REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE To: Richard H. Brodhead, President of Duke University, Paul H. Haagen, Professor of Law and Chair of the Duke University Academic Council

6. Def: slack, loose, without structure or …. being open or loose not stringent…

8. Although parents and Coach Pressler endorse lacrosse's social cohesion as good for individual members and for team performance, it does involve negative aspects. Bad alcohol-related behavior seems to be reinforced rather than mitigated by the group. Responsible senior leadership on the part of team captains seems to have been too often missing. Despite repeated and stern warnings from their coach and his imposition of significant punishments for unacceptable behavior, this behavior continued. The players and their families have expressed deep respect and admiration for Coach Pressler; why then, the Committee wondered, did the players persist in defying him and in failing to live up to his expectation of their conduct? The negative aspects of lacrosse cohesion is a serious problem that requires resolution. It was not, however, a problem that was ever adequately or fully brought to the attention of either Coach Pressler or the players' parents.

9. The Duke University Lacrosse Team played a prominent role in negative campus/community social issues, far out of proportion to their numbers within the entire student population… Some of findings of the Report…

10. AAI The alleged rape and criminal arrests are only a symptom of a much larger problem…

11. 0.75 % (47/6244) Duke undergraduate students were lacrosse players in the fall of 2005 REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

12. 25% of the disorderly conduct cases were LAX players 40% of the Other cases were Lax players 50% of the noise ordinance cases were LAX players 33% of the open container cases were LAX players 4% of sanctions involved LAX players 5% of warnings involved LAX players 5% of cases involving alcohol policy were LAX players 21% of alcohol-unsafe behavior were LAX players REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

13. A single incident in the Fall of 2001 involved ten students in a dorm room playing a drinking game; three of the players received disciplinary citations. The players apparently were entertaining a high school student the team was trying to recruit. REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

14. Number of incidents by year 2000-2006 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 The focal point of administrators' discussion of the lacrosse team's disciplinary record was a compilation of the record that the Dean of Judicial Affairs prepared in the Fall of 2004. Immediately prior to preparing the document, the dean had estimated that "67% of the team has had a disciplinary history.” REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

15. By all measures that we considered, the disciplinary record of the lacrosse team was noticeably worse that the records of all other athletic teams. A greater percentage of the lacrosse players had disciplinary records than the percentage on all but one other team. A larger percentage of the lacrosse team have been involved in alcohol-related incidents than the percentage of players on all other teams. REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

16. In summary, the non-academic disciplinary record of the lacrosse team that the Committee examined deserved the full attention of the Division of Student Affairs and the Athletic Department. The Committee does not believe that either gave sufficient attention to the conduct. Administrators responsible for the discipline of students were generally aware of the irresponsible conduct of lacrosse players associated with drinking. With the exception of the Office of Judicial Affairs, none of these administrators was especially alarmed by the conduct. Although some administrators claim that they communicated their concerns to Coach Pressler, there is no evidence that they adequately did so. REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

17. The University's ability systematically to monitor and address non-academic and non-suspendable athlete misconduct (and student misconduct generally) is hampered by an approach that is informal to the point of being casual. The result is a process that is arbitrary and often ineffective. REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

18. The University's ability to deal fully with the problem of alcohol is undermined by its own ambivalence toward drinking and the conduct it spawns. REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

19. Alcohol is the single greatest factor involved in the unacceptable behavior of Duke students in general and members of the lacrosse team specifically, both on- and off-campus. Drunkenness is the cause of behaviors that represent a serious nuisance to the community and a source of significant personal danger for the student. The University's alcohol policy is reasonable, but it is inconsistently enforced and only ineffectually disciplined. The University's ambivalence is most obviously manifested in the University's tolerance of egregious violations of its own policies at events such as Tailgate and Last Day of Classes, as outlined in the Report of the Committee to investigate the Judicial Procedure. While the alcohol related misconduct by members of the lacrosse team is deplorable, the University is, by its lack of leadership in this area of deep concern, implicated in the alcohol excesses of lacrosse players and of Duke students more generally. REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

20. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Continuance of the Men's Lacrosse Team with appropriate oversight 2. Code of Conduct for Athletes 3. Need for Improved Communication between Student Affairs and Athletics 4. Need for a Clearly Articulated and Enforced Alcohol Policy REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE

22. ROLLING STONE