The NCAA Committee on Infractions has placed Stetson University on probation until May 2005 for multiple violations of NCAA bylaws related to recruiting, extra benefits and unethical conduct in women's tennis.

This case focused on the behavior of the former head women's tennis coach in January 2000 and also in spring and summer 2001. The former head coach resigned from the institution and was hired by another member institution October 17, 2001.

The penalty represents a one-year extension from the ending date of the probationary period imposed from Stetson's previous infractions case involving the men's basketball program. The women's tennis violations were uncovered by the university near the end of the men's basketball investigation in summer 2001, and the university began formal investigation of the women's tennis program in late August 2001.

The committee found that the former head coach provided false and misleading information to the university, the NCAA enforcement staff and, later, to the committee during the infractions hearing, which compromised her credibility. The committee noted that she also encouraged student-athletes to provide false and misleading information and, in doing so, influenced student-athletes in a manner that is contrary to NCAA ideals and principles.

The committee determined that the former head coach had impermissible contacts with a recruit who later became a student-athlete and provided her with an expense-paid trip to campus that exceeded 48 hours and included other impermissible recruiting activities.

Specifically, during the expense-paid visit that began on or before April 13, 2001, the former head coach drove the student-athlete from her temporary residence in Palm Harbor, Florida, to the institution's campus in DeLand (150 miles one way). During the visit April 14, the former head coach drove the student-athlete to the institution's women's tennis match at the University of South Florida in Tampa (about 125 miles one way). On April 15 or 16, the former head coach watched the student-athlete play against another women's tennis student-athlete. The former head coach provided the visit even though she did not first obtain the student-athlete's academic transcript. The visit ended when the former head coach drove the student-athlete to the Miami airport, about 270 miles one way, even though the Daytona Beach and Orlando airports are the closest major airports to the campus (one-way distances of 19 and 40 miles, respectively). The former head coach drove the student-athlete to the airport so she could return to her native country of Argentina. Two months after the campus visit, the student-athlete received a full scholarship from the university.

The committee noted that the former head coach compromised her credibility by attempting to conceal her involvement in improper recruiting inducements to the student-athlete by reporting, among other things, "that the student-athlete had a twin sister who, rather than the student-athlete, lived with the head coach during the summer of 2001." The former head coach later admitted to the institution that the student-athlete did not have a twin sister, but then maintained to NCAA enforcement staff that she did. The former head coach was asked to provide passport information for the twin sister but was unable to do so. The former head coach provided conflicting and contradictory information during the infractions hearing as well on this subject

The former head coach communicated several times with the student-athlete in person, on the telephone and via e-mail regarding her transfer to the institution. The former head coach made the contacts despite not obtaining permission to contact the student-athlete from the four-year institution where the young woman had been a women's tennis student-athlete but withdrew December 2000, less than one academic year earlier.

The committee ruled that the former head coach provided improper recruiting inducements to the student-athlete and two other prospects during June-August 2001. During this time, the former head coach conducted impermissible tryouts with the young women.

Specifically, the former head coach lodged one student-athlete in her home for about two months at no cost; the former head coach provided local transportation and the use of her automobile on a frequent basis at no cost to the student-athlete; the former head coach had roses delivered to another student-athlete at the former head coach's home address; and the former head coach oversaw periodic on-campus tennis workouts for the young women and often provided skill instruction during the workouts.

The committee also found that in June 2001, the former head coach arranged for two prospective student-athletes to receive two nights of lodging at no cost to the women after an unofficial visit to the university's campus, in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.2-(h).

Moreover, in January 2000, the former head coach arranged for one of the student-athletes to receive housing at no cost for two or three days before her enrollment at the institution for the 2000 spring semester, a violation of the cost-free lodging bylaw. The former head coach also drove one of the student-athletes from campus to the Miami airport so that the student-athlete could fly to her native country of Venezuela (an extra benefit).

The case also contains elements of fraudulent academic credits and unethical conduct by one of the student-athletes. The committee determined that the student-athlete was admitted to Stetson and awarded athletics aid on the basis of fraudulent academic credit, false transcripts and false and misleading information on the young woman's application for admission to the institution.

Specifically, the student-athlete used false transcripts to indicate she was enrolled at Romero Brest College in Argentina for two semesters. She actually attended the college for about one month before withdrawing and did not complete any courses.

As a result of the false transcripts, the student-athlete received credit for 27 hours of transfer course work that she did not earn, including two English courses that allowed Stetson to waive its requirement that non-English speaking students receive a satisfactory score on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) to gain admission.

Information about the student-athlete's semester of attendance at Romero Brest was withheld from her application.

"The fraudulent academic credit and missing application information allowed the institution to grant the young woman athletics aid without requiring her to complete a one-year residence requirement as an NCAA nonqualifier," the committee wrote in its report. Without the fraudulent and missing information, the student-athlete would have been considered a nonqualifier because she had not taken the ACT or the SAT.

The committee noted that the NCAA enforcement staff originally charged the former head coach as having been involved in the arrangement of these false transcripts, as there was evidence to indicate her involvement. "However, after a review of the evidence, the committee could not conclude within the NCAA standards for making findings (Bylaw 32.8.8.2) that the evidence was sufficient to find that the former head coach had individual responsibility for this violation," the committee wrote in its report.

The committee found the former head coach in violation of NCAA bylaws regarding unethical conduct. Those findings were based on the following:

* Her knowing involvement in recruiting and extra benefit violations;

* Her knowing involvement in providing improper inducements and extra benefits to prospective and enrolled student-athletes, and subsequently providing false and misleading information to the institution about these violations;

* Providing false and misleading information to NCAA enforcement staff;

* Encouraging a women's student-athlete to provide the university with false and misleading information in regard to NCAA violations.

The committee singled out the former head coach's testimony during the infractions hearing as specific evidence of her unethical behavior.

The committee wrote: "Despite irrefutable evidence that the student-athlete did not have a twin sister, but rather had a sister who was two years older and that this sister had not traveled to the United States, the former head coach not only continued to insist that the student-athlete's sister lived with her during the summer of 2001, she now claimed that there was an additional sister. To the committee, this was the most blatant instance, among many such instances, of her provision of false and misleading information."

In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions and the fact that this case was self-reported by the institution. The penalties both self-imposed by the university and imposed by the committee include the following:

• Public reprimand and censure.

• A period of probation ending May 8, 2005, which is a one-year extension from the ending date of the probationary period imposed from its previous infractions case.

• The university gave the former head coach the option of being dismissed or resigning her position September 10, 2001. She resigned.

• The women's tennis team decreased its practice time by one week during the 2003-04 academic year.

• One of the student-athletes was declared ineligible and voluntarily withdrew from the women's tennis program. The athletics department did not seek her reinstatement and recommended that her scholarship not be renewed for the following academic year.

• Several student-athletes were declared ineligible pending repayment of the impermissible benefits they received. Two student-athletes repaid their extra benefits ($30 and $45, respectively) to charity and were reinstated. A third student-athlete has not been reinstated, as she did not make repayment.

• The former head coach has been informed in writing by the NCAA that due to her involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation in this case, she is subject to the show-cause procedures in NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.2-(l) for a five-year period (September 30, 2004, to September 29, 2009). This means that if she seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the five-year period, she and the institution must appear before the Committee on Infractions so it can consider whether her athletically related duties at a new institution should be limited for a designated period.

During the university's period of probation, it must do the following:

• Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition;

• File with the committee's director an annual compliance report indicating the progress made with this program by April 15, 2005.

• At the end of the probationary period, the university's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Stetson shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in the case (September 30, 2004).

The members of the NCAA Committee on Infractions who heard this case are Thomas E. Yeager, (then-committee chair and commissioner of the Colonial Athletic Association); Alfred J. Lechner Jr., attorney, Princeton, New Jersey; Gene A. Marsh, (current committee chair and law professor), University of Alabama; Andrea L. Myers, athletics director at Indiana State University; Josephine R. Potuto, law professor, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Eugene D. Smith, director of athletics at Arizona State University.