Guelph Implodes

Alsooo wrote:

fred wrote:

Who is we?

Do you live in Guelph, or know anything that went on?

Obviously, you know nothing about running in Guelph or running on a track in general.

The Guelph people also said why would the RCMP be involved .....

Sorry to be pedantic, but why would the RCMP be involved? Guelph has a local police force if you mean a criminal investigation is warranted.

This should clear things up a bit:

While the legal age of consent in Canada is 16 in most cases, the RCMP's website states that individuals under the age of 18 cannot consent to sex when the "other consenting party is in a position of trust, authority or there is a dependency on that person."

"A coach could definitely be considered as a person of authority," says Corporal Caroline Duval of the RCMP in an emailed response. She went on that further questions should be directed to Guelph police, as the case would fall under their jurisdiction.

Const. Kyle Grant with the Guelph police also emailed a response; he said police are not investigating Scott-Thomas.

fred wrote:

https://athleticsillustrated.com/corrections-to-dave-scott-thomas-article-athletics-canada-commissioner-dr-frank-fowlie-confirms-the-nature-of-the-suspension-of-dave-scott-thomas/

While this has no impact on what Mr. Scott-Thomas may or may not have done, this could be a big problem for Athletics Illustrated. For the "reporter" to apparently get so much of this so badly wrong is pretty shocking given how sensitive this subject matter is.

This clarification/apology is a classic mitigation strategy to a potential defamation claim. I suspect none of the parties will expend the effort and dollars to litigate this, but it seems to be pretty poor journalism.

There have been a few more newspaper articles in the last 10 days but unregistered users here can not post links.

So it seems this is now a dead story on lets run?

You can summarize, I’d be grateful. Trackie didn’t have much, last I checked.

First time caller here.

It's ridiculous to punish an adult coach for having a consensual sexual relationship with an adult athlete.

Hard to think of a more insulting view of a woman than holding her unable to have any agency whatsoever.

fred wrote:

jesseriley wrote:

This is turning out just as we said it would, months ago.

Who is we?

Do you live in Guelph, or know anything that went on?

Obviously, you know nothing about running in Guelph or running on a track in general.

This is turning out just as we expected and more

fred wrote:

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.

Shame on the low class people in Guelph for letting this happen. We are all very disappointed .

rojo wrote: 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.

I don't get it. At all. I don't mean the specifics of this case, I mean the problem in general that leads to these messes in which nobody can hold "right."

First, if the age of consent here is 18 and both parties are legal, then why this need to censor and control the life-choices of others? I have never understood this viewpoint. If someone is not under legal protection, because of their age, then why do they need, want or "deserve" the "protection" of others. They get to make their choices and everyone makes plenty of dumb choices in life. Those wanting to make this choice for the consenting adults themselves have made plenty of their own dumb choices.....

Beyond the simplistic age criterion, we could of course make the reasonable sense argument that different people mature at different rates and that some 16 yos are mature enough to engage in and take responsibility for sexual activity. Whereas some 25yos like incel basement dwellers like LR readers may not be. Nevertheless, the law of the land sets the standard and must be respected. I am sure we can agree on that point. It establishes a line. Even if that law is different in different countries!

Where I have a big problem is where the law is not being broken and others decide how and when to police.

This infantalization diminishes our civilized society in which we are expected, encouraged and compelled to make free choices. We all need to learn how to make these choices and inevitably, the learning involves some bad choices along the way.

Info from police/RCMP wrote: While the legal age of consent in Canada is 16 in most cases, the RCMP's website states that individuals under the age of 18 cannot consent to sex when the "other consenting party is in a position of trust, authority or there is a dependency on that person."

"A coach could definitely be considered as a person of authority," says Corporal Caroline Duval of the RCMP in an emailed response. She went on that further questions should be directed to Guelph police, as the case would fall under their jurisdiction.

Const. Kyle Grant with the Guelph police also emailed a response; he said police are not investigating Scott-Thomas.

"Could be considered" - so then the criteria are under the adjudication of others not involved in the consensual relationship between those of consenting age?! Who decides this - the RCMP inspector? An independent panel? Absent specific criteria this means criminality of the act is arbitrary and in the hands of unspecified adjudicators who may not be legally or otherwise qualified and may have a partisan interest??!! We would never tolerate a jury trial with those preconditions! There would be good reason for a counsel to push back against such an arbitrary and contradictory method for determining case admissibility.

I see RCMP agrees, they don't want to deal with this, per Const. Grant's reported email above.

"Could be considered" - so then the criteria are under the adjudication of others not involved in the consensual relationship between those of consenting age?! Who decides this - the RCMP inspector? An independent panel? Absent specific criteria this means criminality of the act is arbitrary and in the hands of unspecified adjudicators who may not be legally or otherwise qualified and may have a partisan interest??!! We would never tolerate a jury trial with those preconditions! There would be good reason for a counsel to push back against such an arbitrary and contradictory method for determining case admissibility.

I see RCMP agrees, they don't want to deal with this, per Const. Grant's reported email above.[/quote]

I believe the law was amended to include a person of authority came into effect after 2006. So this is likely the reason the police are unable to press charges.

I believe the law was amended to include a person of authority after 2006. This is likely the reason the police will not investigate if the alleged incident(s) occurred then.

DomiTTTTian wrote:

"Could be considered" - so then the criteria are under the adjudication of others not involved in the consensual relationship between those of consenting age?! Who decides this - the RCMP inspector? An independent panel? Absent specific criteria this means criminality of the act is arbitrary and in the hands of unspecified adjudicators who may not be legally or otherwise qualified and may have a partisan interest??!! We would never tolerate a jury trial with those preconditions! There would be good reason for a counsel to push back against such an arbitrary and contradictory method for determining case admissibility.

I see RCMP agrees, they don't want to deal with this, per Const. Grant's reported email above.

Yes, as in any case of potentially-criminal activity in Canada, someone who did not participate should adjudicate. In this case, because the age of consent falls under the criminal code, a judge should have jurisdiction, but only if formal criminal charges are brought. Otherwise, an investigation may be conducted by the relevant professional organization (UofG and AC/AO), but it could not conclude that a crime had taken place without the Court. The investigation could determine whether professional misconduct took place and exact punishment of a professional nature if it were found to be the case. For example, coaching certification could be revoked, funding could be revoked, coach could be banned from working professionally with minors, and so on.

The RCMP don't "not want to deal with this." They have no legitimate jurisdiction to deal with it, and there will not do so so unless it arises that it falls under their purview. It's like saying your local high school principal doesn't want to deal with disciplining a 4th grade student at the local elementary school. There would be no reason to do that unless it somehow came to light that the 4th grade student was also enrolled at the high school.

It's funny you say we would never tolerate a jury trial of that nature. Given that the American government literally just did that, very openly, it seems unlikely you're correct for Canada either.

I am just writing to say a big story is coming on this topic later today in the Glboe and Mail. It should clear up many of the questions people have.

DomiTTTTian wrote:

I see RCMP agrees, they don't want to deal with this, per Const. Grant's reported email above.

Do you know that the RCMP are federal, Ontario has the OPP and then also regional police services like the Guelph Police. That is why the RCMP aren’t involved, it would be investigated by the Guelph Police if there was a criminal complaint.

OK, I'll buy the Globe and Mail, Saturday morning.

Nothing in the paper.

But this is on the net.

"The Globe and Mail (Ontario Edition): 2020-02 ... - PressReader

3 hours ago - Dave Scott-Thomas ran the University of Guelph's prestigious track ... Ms. Brown spoke with The Globe and Mail in a series of interviews that "

Front page now. Pretty long.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-athlete-breaks-silence-about-sexual-misconduct-of-university-of-guelph/