My questioning wasn't meant to apply to Guelph/DST. Assuming there was at least one athlete-coach relationship there which crossed the line, DST's firing seems a no-brainer. As stated, there's never been a time when it was OK for coach-athlete relationships in a scholastic setting, regardless of age of the parties. But until someone in the know speaks out publicly, it's gossip and guesswork. Outside a scholastic setting, if both parties are adults, the coach-athlete age gap might register morally or practically, but wouldn't seem a legal factor. If you can consent to filming porn at 18, you can agree to the same sort of activity in private. Where this doesn't fly is if an overriding power imbalance exists, or specific prohibition exists, such as arising from a Code of Conduct or Employment Contract. I was more curious about similar case of Randy Brookes, bought up later in this thread. Brookes, 42, is the former coach of the Ajax Gazelles (also in Ontario) suspended two years for having a relationship with a female club member (of similar age). That outcome was a bit of surprise given a LARGE number of past and current adult coach-athlete relationships which seem to have triggered no discipline. It also seems debatable whether unreasonable coach-athlete power imbalance exists between same-age peers in a recreational club setting. Athletics Canada does seems to have established and changed rules on this matter. But it's clearly not consistently policed. Is discipline considered only after formal complaint is made? I don't disagree with AC's rule here, but note it wasn't always so,. Anbd if you're going to selectively apply the rule, why have it all? How does one interpret "Avoid any behaviour..." (see AC wording below) Seems toothless. If an action is outright prohibited, why not say so? Otherwise, one might answer complaint with "Hey, I tried., but.." Also, while another poster states an opinion that AC rules apply to all scholastic sports bodies, Provincial Athletic Associations, and their registered athletes/clubs, I don't see where that's mentioned? The Coaching Association of Canada also regulates its membership, so there seems confusing grey areas and overlap as to what rules apply to who. "This policy was approved by Athletics Canada Board of Directors on November 17,2006... Coaches will: ...Avoid any behaviour that abuses the power imbalance inherent in the coaching position to (a) establish or maintain a sexual relationship with an athlete that he or she is coaching, or (b) encourage inappropriate physical or emotional intimacy with an athlete, regardless of the athlete’s age."https://athletics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Policy-on-Member-Conduct.doc-Nov.-2014.pdf
rojo wrote:
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.