Guelph Implodes

jesseriley wrote:

Speaking of “humans coming out of Guelph,” I bet they don’t miss all the puking that passes for coaching.

When I was running 15 mile progression runs in my 50s I would puke in the last 200 meters all out.

I don't know what Mr. Scott Thomas's training style was, but I doubt that it was that hard, and more methodical. First time I saw him he was tracking his 2:10 and 2:11 marathoners on a tempo component workout on a dirt road.

I’d suggest not eating before you run. There’s an old saying that no one ever starved to death during a race.

OHCANADA wrote:

AGREE, 33-35 is perfect and predictable timing.

Kind of slow for elite Canadiam milers, but OK for 70 year olds. I believe Ryan could run a 23 and did 8 times 28.

convinced that you actually exist as a real person --am still a little confused what you are talking about 33-35???? 200 m repeats???? if so, maybe Ryun at 23 makes sense but I think he might have done 8 reps a lot faster than 28 seconds. I'm thinking ryun could do 25 second 200s like he was taking a walk in the park.

And what does 33-35 (whatever it refers too) or ryun have to do with the topic of this thread???

HistoryRunner wrote:

convinced that you actually exist as a real person --am still a little confused what you are talking about 33-35???? 200 m repeats???? if so, maybe Ryun at 23 makes sense but I think he might have done 8 reps a lot faster than 28 seconds. I'm thinking ryun could do 25 second 200s like he was taking a walk in the park.

And what does 33-35 (whatever it refers too) or ryun have to do with the topic of this thread???

Yeah, maybe he could have done 25's but Dennis held him back. That's the essence of coaching, not letting them destroy themselves. What's it got to do with DST; well, Dennis was the great coach before Dave.

Fred - kind of overkill replying to yourself 4 times in a row on the last page.

I'm really sorry.

There are no regulations in play that permit athlete-coach relationships at this time. So absolutes are necessary.

They haven't been explicitly banned, but as almost all of the most serious complaints being investigated involve sexual interference or harassment, please tell me how this will be policed?

Anytime an offending behaviour generates almost all of the legal risk for the governing organizations the behaviour *will be banned. It's simply easier and leaves everyone with a far clearer understanding of the go and no-go zones.

If you want to date your athlete then he or she must be coached by someone else. End of story. If the athlete wants to stay, the coach must transfer or resign. End of story. It's no different in a corp environment where legal risks must also be minimized. Do manager/staff relationships happen? Yes they do. Are people fired for having them? Not always, but the consequence is always as described: coach must resign or transfer or the athlete must quit or transfer.

This won't be something clubs have a choice over if the guidelines mandate it. No-one will enforce the rules, but if there are *any complaints later on, then all parties who overlooked the issue suddenly become liable. I don't think it will be the rule that will change anyone's behaviours and on that you are exactly right.

But like workplace health and safety for managers and supervisors, liability lies with management,

Once you realize you can be *legally culpable for the consequences of a failed relationship or a scenario that goes from cute to harassment in one day, you _will_ _enforce_ those rules without any prompting from the associations.

apparently age 33-35 is when women wake up.

#facts

What does ‘women wake up between 33-35’ even mean?

Howie Gordy wrote:

apparently age 33-35 is when women wake up.

#facts

Malindi Elmore 2:24 at age 39, supercedes anything in Guelph.

what the? wrote:

What does ‘women wake up between 33-35’ even mean?

It means they come out of the culturally conditioned coma, and see life as it really is.

You seem like a good person PartlyCloudy with good intentions but unfortunately the world isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be. Are you suggesting that for any husband-wife duo's out there, one of them must stop coaching the other right now?

Shades of Grey wrote:

You seem like a good person PartlyCloudy with good intentions but unfortunately the world isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be. Are you suggesting that for any husband-wife duo's out there, one of them must stop coaching the other right now?

That is exactly what the AC Rules imply and likely what they would enforce. These rules also tier down and bind everyone in the sport in Canada irrespective of individual club/provincial/university rules because AC sanctions the sport in Canada. Moreover, the rules also means that your (a generic 'you') significant other would not be able to transfer in to have you as a coach. I haven't figured out how I feel about this. There are a few cases I know of where this has worked really well, but also, unfortunately, a tonne of cases where abuse was in play. I think AC is erring on the side of caution, which is reasonable.

"The law about sexual activity involving young people has recently changed. Generally, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter).

There are exceptions for sexual relationships for people who are close in age. This means that a person as young as 14 can legally consent to sexual activity with someone why is less than five years older than them as long as there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation. Similarly, a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said consent laws should not be based on stereotypes. Therefore, judges and juries cannot rely on the fact that a person has consented to sexual activity with someone in the past to mean that they consented the next time. It also means that someone’s sexual history should not be used to show that they automatically consented. There are rules about when a person’s past sexual history can be brought up in court."

So is AC breaking the law when attempting to impose their values on consenting sexual enguagers?

Secondly, to whom does AC account when imposing their moral values on normal Canadians?

Thirdly, when whatever was going on in Guelph occurred, who was running the Justice Department? Was it

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47408239

Was the way the law was applied consistent with actual case history, and not some BS invented by AC or some other political necessity?

Ernest wrote:

As devil's advocate, inappropriateness of an adult Coach-Athlete relationship hinges not on imbalance of power, but degree of it.

In an educational setting, that power imbalance is significant and as is usual gap in imaturity level - but for a recreational or club coach, for example, citing an unacceptable power imbalance in every athlete-coach situation seems a stretch.

It's possible for an athlete to be impartially and competently coached before/during/after some consenting adult relationship - and in any case, if that seems messy, there are plenty of clubs and coaches around, and also plenty who choose to run unattached or self-coach.

There's difference between "distasteful", frowned upon", "awkward", and being so inappropriate to be grounds for firing.

That red line seems to have moved -- because a boat load of high-profile coaches could be on the chopping block if this standard is applied retroactively.

How old was the athlete? If we are talking about a voluntary post college track club where the coach is 42 and the athlete is 38, that's a lot different than a 52-year-old coach and an 18-year old college student.

I think age and setting are both key.