In yesterday’s editorial, we expressed our disappointment with the three student-athletes suspended Tuesday on marijuana charges, and we voiced our hope that the athletics department would hold them to a standard befitting of Division I competitors.

We spoke too soon.

Yesterday at about 2:30 p.m., the department released a statement that Banks, Hamlin and Laing had been reinstated and would be immediately eligible to take part in all team activities.

Under the arbitrary rules of the Student-Athlete Discipline Policy, such a decision is fully within the department’s rights.

The policy states that in the event of a serious criminal violation (drug possession included) the athlete will be automatically suspended until the legal system resolves the charges, the university or department imposes sanctions, and/or the department “lifts or modifies the suspension.”

Catch that last part? It’s a loophole — the equivalent of the parental punishment timeline of “until I say so.”

The problem is that it leaves athletes’ suspension up to the subjectivity of individuals with a lot at stake in the game of counting wins and losses.

Indeed, one of the athletic department’s primary goals is to chalk up victories for Iowa State University. So how objectively can the department possibly evaluate suspensions for key players?

A policy that allows administrators’ discretion creates the opportunity to weigh the benefits of a potential win against the benefits of upholding Iowa State’s character and image.

Even if no such impropriety occurred in this situation, such a subjective policy leaves students and fans with nagging doubts that it might have.

Put it this way: Do we have faith that these three football players were treated the same way that a second-string soccer player or a member of the cross country team would have been treated in the same situation?

If students and fans have to hesitate before answering that question, then ISU athletics has a potentially huge reputation problem on its hands.

Sure, the three athletes are probably facing team sanctions (we hope). But until such sanctions are made known, many fans will have a sneaking suspicion that the players got off scott-free because they’re football players or because Coach Rhoads wants them on the field for Saturday’s game.

Even if it’s untrue, the suspicion is damaging enough.

We simply don’t understand the athletic department’s stubborn refusal to discuss the matter or to give any indication as to why the decision to reinstate the players was made.

Yesterday’s press release ends with the declaration that the athletics department “will not have any further comment on this issue.”

But there are going to be lots of comments — regardless of whether or not the department wants to participate.

Students are going to discuss whether or not an athletes’ treatment by the university would differ from theirs in the event of a possession charge. Fans are going to comment on the reputation of our football program.

The only way to prevent such a situation is to prevent the vacuum of information that causes it. So, we implore the athletic department to fill the void and tell students and fans what really happened.