Guelph Implodes

outsiderbyfar wrote:

An adult coach with a 17 year old girl? Illegal then and now.

Fiduciary duty? Outlined clearly in Roman times. THOUSANDS of years ago.

Shake your head!!!!!

Age of consent in Roman times was 12.

Age of consent in Canada was never over 17. Nothing illegal about it.

Are you as dumb as your post implies?

Prior to 2008 the offence of “sexual exploitation” made it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 but under 18, where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and child.

great retort!!

You’re super smart and really kind.

You may want to check YOUR facts before you call someone dumb. Makes you look a little...... uninformed.

The original question was the age of 20. You change it to 17 to fit your narrative.

Good try though.

Oh, I must be on a different thread than I thought.... sorry! My mistake!

I didn’t think I was on a thread where anyone thought that DST was fired from UofG because of a “distasteful” relationship with an athlete.

I thought I was in a thread where people realized that DST was fired because of something egregious. And was refocusing the discussion on the issue, rather than distracting by discussion of unethical, bad behaviour (relationship with a 20 year old).

Age of consent being the issue , and knowing that DST coached high school aged athletes in the early 2000s, isn't this primarily a Speed River TFC issue? It seems like UofG is baring the brunt of the inquiry but in reality shouldn't parents be banging on the door of Speed River TFC with pitchforks in hand?

If I were a parent of a kid that ran for Speed River at that time, I would be screaming for transparency. Obviously the victim is entitled to privacy, but at the same time UofG learned something factual in their investigation that is of value to other potential victims. This is basically a MeToo without the Me. The Me in this situation hasn't actually come forward, and may not ever come forward.

For AC and Speed River TFC to disavow DST without their own investigations is just risk mitigation. UofG is the only party that has a version of the "truth" that was damning enough to call for dismissal.

Perhaps Dave was getting ahead of a news story by coming clean to UofG but without a victim coming forward, I think he probably could have survived the whole thing given the Guelph omerta. He said vs. I heard she said, isn't very compelling from a legal perspective.

Perhaps some lawyers could chime in on this but would a divorce be a good way to protect your assets if you are DST? Get divorced to legally transfer your assets to your "Ex" in order to shelter them from a civil lawsuit?

askingforafriend wrote:

Perhaps some lawyers could chime in on this but would a divorce be a good way to protect your assets if you are DST? Get divorced to legally transfer your assets to your "Ex" in order to shelter them from a civil lawsuit?

Maybe DST wants to protect his giant turtle jacket.

Having a relationship with one of your student athletes as a university coach would be a fireable offense, regardless of age or consent. It would be clearly spelled out in a coach's contract, that they would sign every year.

Having a relationship with an athlete in your club would fall under a club's rules, assuming the relationship was between 2 consenting of age people.

His wife has left him and the university has fired him. Seems pretty clear to me what has transpired. Sounds like DST was caught doing something he shouldn't have and it's burned him. People make mistakes and I feel bad for the "victims", his family and the community.

Athletics Canada's reaction was odd but understandable, perhaps there was enough rumours in the past and this was the final nail in the coffin for DST and AC wants to distance themselves from any further fall out.

Apart from the nationals bid stuff and abuse of the relationship with AC and some of the benefits that came with that, the rest of these "allegations" seem like sour grapes from athletes that didn't fit in or weren't good enough to make the team. Coaches are allowed to be pissed off at athletes that string them along and then go elsewhere. There is no right to remain a member of a club or team regardless of how good or how nice you are.

But there us a right to remain coach of a team, apparently, regardless of doing what DST did.

So, if it was so well known, the almighty Steve Boyd throwing every single Guelph athletes/staff even remotely associated under the bus has actually publicly admitted to contravening the Coaches Association of Canada Responsible Coaching Movement about "Reporting Concerning Behaviour" (see:

). But he had no "immediate professional duty to act"? What a lot of crap. I have already emailed CAC with this link to report - if you knew so much, how could you stand by? (again, showing how rumours don't mean anything, unless you have evidence...rumours are much different than evidence).

jesseriley wrote:

But there is a right to remain coach of a team, apparently, regardless of doing what DST did.

Correct. If you don't like the coach(es), find a new club/team. Again, there is no "right" to being a member of a private club or university team. Personality conflicts are bound to happen, coaches are not perfect and not every coach/club are going to be a perfect fit for you.

Just because you don't like a restaurant doesn't mean they have to change their menu to satisfy your individual tastes. If enough people chose other programs or clubs, change will happen or the club will go out of business. There are plenty of great clubs and university/college programs in Canada, find one that works best for you.

wowjustwow wrote:

So quite a few of you OUA douchebags knew about this and kept quiet?

I understand that it may seem this way, but it's often pretty complicated. As examples:

I've reported incidents (all involving the same harasser) of sexual harassment at my university and they couldn't be investigated unless I was willing to be named in the complaint. If you've worked in a Canadian university, you know that this may mean the end of your working at the university, regardless of the protections in place. I'd actually be okay with that, but...

In the same example noted above, none of the people who had been harassed were willing to make complaints, for fear of losing their jobs. As a result, the university couldn't do anything. It wasn't even possible to speak with the harasser and say something like, "You may be engaging in behaviour that isn't appreciated by others."

I've also reported to Athletics Canada an instance of a Canadian national team coach sleeping with one of their athletes during a national team trip. AC wouldn't act on it unless I had evidence. Apparently that was my job, not theirs.

I hate the idea of "snitch lines" of the sort that are used by the CCES in anti-doping initiatives (

) but given the structures in place that serve to keep most people silent, it's kinda time. This is a far bigger issue than doping.

PS - I wasn't in a position to report DST myself (I'd only heard rumours and knew that both Guelph and AC wouldn't act on those alone) but when I implored others in a position to help to do so, they declined. So yes, those douchebags exist.

Totally agree. Strange to publicly admit that you were fully aware and informed by numerous people of the transgression, yet decided to sit by and instead complain about trivial event hosting and carding ‘issues’. SB always seems to want people to sue him so he can defend his righteous opinion, maybe it’s time to call his bluff.

Several coaches need to step down.

It is indeed a sad day for the OUA.

Do you think it’s time to have a national “safe sport” body that operates independently of governing bodies/universities etc for this type of thing? We haven’t gotten any transparency out of UofG to date. Not sure what will come out of the AC investigation although they were pretty thorough in reporting about the Ottawa Lions.

So he had an immediate professional duty to act on a rumor that he heard and didn't witness first-hand? Furthermore, SB admitted to having heard two different versions of the story, both second hand. Which should he report?

The people with an immediate professional duty to act all live in Guelph.

I'm leaning towards the idea of an independent body to address these sorts of issues, but there will be a lot to think about.

UG's ability to be transparent is probably limited by its own policies. I'm reading through other universities' human rights & equity policies right now, and confidentiality is always a central element of the process once a complaint has been made. I don't know all of the reasoning that goes into how these policies are developed, but I do know that there are always individuals/groups who will be frustrated by the way things play out and that that's simply a function of trying to protect people who need protection during the process.