....so theres some ugly stuff floating around about Mark Perry

[MSU158]

Dude, put the shovel down.

Dude, make a cogent argument with defined reasoning for once. Nothing I said was wrong. If it is, please tell me how. You may not like the guy. Hell, I am not saying I even do. But, there are variables at play.

When two parties enter into a willing arrangement, that is inarguably different than a forced one. Now that I have read the code, I openly admit he is in violation. Still, that violation is more on the lines of driving 10-15 over the speedlimit vs. drunk driving and causing an accident and injury....

 

[tigerguy_]

Dude, make a cogent argument with defined reasoning for once. Nothing I said was wrong. If it is, please tell me how. You may not like the guy. Hell, I am not saying I even do. But, there are variables at play.

When two parties enter into a willing arrangement, that is inarguably different than a forced one. Now that I have read the code, I openly admit he is in violation. Still, that violation is more on the lines of driving 10-15 over the speedlimit vs. drunk driving and causing an accident and injury....

You are usually a thoughtful poster on this board, but take the "L" on this one.

 

[MSU158]

You are usually a thoughtful poster on this board, but take the "L" on this one.

Lol, again tell me where I am wrong. What exactly am I taking the "L" for? I never once said he was in the clear. I simply said I wanted more info before making a decision. That is what someone SHOULD do before making any significant decisions.

Again, this is a situation where a person's livelihood is at stake. I have never been a party to internet lynch mobs. It's too easy to condemn someone while sitting in an anonymous ivory tower.

I am just not quick to crucify someone based on a dumb decision that, so far, seems to have zero criminal aspects to it...

 

[so cal hawkfan]

Dude, make a cogent argument with defined reasoning for once. Nothing I said was wrong. If it is, please tell me how. You may not like the guy. Hell, I am not saying I even do. But, there are variables at play.

When two parties enter into a willing arrangement, that is inarguably different than a forced one. Now that I have read the code, I openly admit he is in violation. Still, that violation is more on the lines of driving 10-15 over the speedlimit vs. drunk driving and causing an accident and injury....

Bro you are typically one of the more informed, level headed posters on this forum, but you’re losing me on this one. As a coach in our modern day world, Mark absolutely knows, or reasonably should have known that a sexual relationship between him and one his athletes is expressly prohibited. Obviously if it wasn’t consensual it’s wrong in ANY situation and is criminal. The reason it’s wrong even when it’s consensual is due to the influence a coach holds over his athletes. It’s stands to reason that the inappropriate relationship would cause tension and/or friction with the other female athletes, hurting the team as a whole. Same thing in corporate jobs. If one’s boss is banging their subordinate it tends to hurt morale as it creates an environment of assumed favoritism. Companies create these policies cause inappropriate relationships with subordinates cost companies millions in lawsuits.

If Mark was in a relationship with one of his athletes he should not allowed to continue to coach within the club.

 

[MSU158]

Bro you are typically one of the more informed, level headed posters on this forum, but you’re losing me on this one. As a coach in our modern day world, Mark absolutely knows, or reasonably should have known that a sexual relationship between him and one his athletes is expressly prohibited. Obviously if it wasn’t consensual it’s wrong in ANY situation and is criminal. The reason it’s wrong even when it’s consensual is due to the influence a coach holds over his athletes. It’s stands to reason that the inappropriate relationship would cause tension and/or friction with the other female athletes, hurting the team as a whole. Same thing in corporate jobs. If one’s boss is banging their subordinate it tends to hurt morale as it creates an environment of assumed favoritism. Companies create these policies cause inappropriate relationships with subordinates cost companies millions in lawsuits.

If Mark was in a relationship with one of his athletes he should not allowed to continue to coach within the club.

Look, I never said he didn't violate rules. I even said from the beginning it was a really dumb decision and makes him look like an asshole.

What I did do was simply ask for the clearly defined rules before I made a decision. Multiple times I asked those that said there was more to it to provide them. Once I read them, I clearly stated he was in violation. However, the level of violation is absolutely subjective.

Again, my stance was more about the difference between making a dumb decision and a criminal one. Dumb decisions happen in a work place ALL THE TIME. Also, all of this hinges on her not just willingly entering into the relationship, but clearly wanting to.

Like I said in another post, as long as those involved clearly wanted to enter into the relationship and remained in it for as long as they wanted and were able to leave it without issue, this is about the least transgressive violation there can be of those listed involving intimate interactions.

 

[manatree]

When it comes to the internet, plenty of people post like they know more and DO NOT. In this case, you just simply expect people on here to take your word? Would you do the same if the role was reversed???

We as fans almost always take their word for it when it comes to rumors about our rivals. We only demand proof when it involves our own tribe.

 

[so cal hawkfan]

Look, I never said he didn't violate rules. I even said from the beginning it was a really dumb decision and makes him look like an asshole.

What I did do was simply ask for the clearly defined rules before I made a decision. Multiple times I asked those that said there was more to it to provide them. Once I read them, I clearly stated he was in violation. However, the level of violation is absolutely subjective.

Again, my stance was more about the difference between making a dumb decision and a criminal one. Dumb decisions happen in a work place ALL THE TIME. Also, all of this hinges on her not just willingly entering into the relationship, but clearly wanting to.

Like I said in another post, as long as those involved clearly wanted to enter into the relationship and remained in it for as long as they wanted and were able to leave it without issue, this is about the least transgressive violation there can be of those listed involving intimate interactions.

You’re a bit fixated on her “wanting” to enter into the relationship. This absolutely does not matter in a boss/ subordinate setting. If they were indeed involved in a relationship while he was coaching her, it’s a violation and HWC has to cut ties with him. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a future lawsuit. The “dumb decisions happen all the time defense” isn’t going to help them during a deposition or on the witness stand.

 

[vhsalum]

You’re a bit fixated on her “wanting” to enter into the relationship. This absolutely does not matter in a boss/ subordinate setting. If they were indeed involved in a relationship while he was coaching her, it’s a violation and HWC has to cut ties with him. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a future lawsuit. The “dumb decisions happen all the time defense” isn’t going to help them during a deposition or on the witness stand.

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

MSU - i'm going to challenge you to change your mind/stance on this. I understand that may be hard, but there's just NO justification for this relationship. IT DOESN'T MATTER if the athlete pursued the coach. And more importantly - it shouldn't.

You keep saying criminal - no, it's not criminal. But it is a hard line for SafeSports and Perry knew that. So no, there shouldn't be any subjectivity/leniency on the issue of punishment. Not that I know exactly what that is, but losing his job should be the MINIMUM.

 

[GlenHawk]

Again, I have no issue with the rule and hope he clearly knew about it to start. Is there anything listed that says what the sanction/punishment would be for such an action?

Also, as far as consent goes, there are PLENTY of ways to determine consent. Hell, do we know for certain she didn't start the relationship? There are a LOT of assumptions on here. Meanwhile. all I was saying was that I wanted to see more clearly defined information before taking a stance.

With what I have read so far, I agree that he violated a clearly defined code of conduct. Beyond that, I still see nothing criminal. So, is there a precedent on how to deal with it? Is it an automatically terminable offense?

Unfortunately, I missed the thread on Intermat but was told by a friend that the term sexual predator was being thrown around by an athlete's father. He also said that @The Vak mentioned there are multiple allegations from multiple women and that minors may be involved.

Man, I really hope that is just message board BS.

 

[MSU158]

Unfortunately, I missed the thread on Intermat but was told by a friend that the term sexual predator was being thrown around by an athlete's father. He also said that @The Vak mentioned there are multiple allegations from multiple women and that minors may be involved.

Man, I really hope that is just message board BS.

Yes, and that is more the kind of stuff I am responding to. So far, what has been posted on here doesn't match up to any of that...

 

[lookleft goright]

This isn't co-workers. This is coach-athlete. Don't move the goalpost.

Consensual doesn't matter in this instance and Mark knew/knows it.

I disagree. Consensual is consensual and important. Now if the girl felt threatened or intimidated, that is totally different.
I understand that rules are made to protect the vulnerable people, but they are also made to cover the A$4 of administrators. If it was against the rules and neither party cared about the rule, then neither should suffer or both should IMHO. I am leaning towards neither.

 

[manatree]

You’re a bit fixated on her “wanting” to enter into the relationship. This absolutely does not matter in a boss/ subordinate setting. If they were indeed involved in a relationship while he was coaching her, it’s a violation and HWC has to cut ties with him. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a future lawsuit. The “dumb decisions happen all the time defense” isn’t going to help them during a deposition or on the witness stand.

When was SafeSport created? If this happened when Perry was with HWC, HWC would also have been obligated to file a report with SafeSport. If they just cut ties and didn't tell anyone, there will and should be repercussions.

 

[MSU158]

You’re a bit fixated on her “wanting” to enter into the relationship. This absolutely does not matter in a boss/ subordinate setting. If they were indeed involved in a relationship while he was coaching her, it’s a violation and HWC has to cut ties with him. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a future lawsuit. The “dumb decisions happen all the time defense” isn’t going to help them during a deposition or on the witness stand.

Hey, I have said multiple times he violated the code of conduct. I never said her "wanting" to changes that part. I simply said it makes a big difference overall.

As far as the punishment goes, I did ask if there is already a standard or precedent. Or, is it handled on a case by case basis?

When the guy is being called a sexual predator, I want way more information before going down that part of the road....

 

[vhsalum]

I disagree. Consensual is consensual and important. Now if the girl felt threatened or intimidated, that is totally different.
I understand that rules are made to protect the vulnerable people, but they are also made to cover the A$4 of administrators. If it was against the rules and neither party cared about the rule, then neither should suffer or both should IMHO. I am leaning towards neither.

Dude. No. Just no. This can't be a thing. Because then that will always be the argument and true victims will never get justice, EVER.

These relationships RARELY start as coercive or aggressive. Based on mutual respect, it grows. But its wrong. Its wrong for the coach, its wrong for the athlete, its wrong if there is also a team involved. Not necessarily criminal, which is where consent comes in. Other than that? Be a coach and do your job.

If you want to have a relationship with an athlete? Quit that job. There are 7 billion people on this planet.

Let me ask you this, where do you stand on a coach-mother of an athlete relationship? Inappropriate or no?

 

[vhsalum]

When was SafeSport created? If this happened when Perry was with HWC, HWC would also have been obligated to file a report with SafeSport. If they just cut ties and didn't tell anyone, there will and should be repercussions.

March of 2017

 

[MSU158]

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

MSU - i'm going to challenge you to change your mind/stance on this. I understand that may be hard, but there's just NO justification for this relationship. IT DOESN'T MATTER if the athlete pursued the coach. And more importantly - it shouldn't.

You keep saying criminal - no, it's not criminal. But it is a hard line for SafeSports and Perry knew that. So no, there shouldn't be any subjectivity/leniency on the issue of punishment. Not that I know exactly what that is, but losing his job should be the MINIMUM.

Look, my stance isn't really that far from yours. Seeing how the rules are listed, he had to knowingly break rules. I just think the "punishment" should fit the "crime". To me, that means the willingness/wanting of all parties involved should play a part.

Again, that is why I wanted to see clearly defined rules and also would like to see clearly defined guidelines for how to deal with transgressors. Fireable offenses or those that automatically terminate employment should be listed to avoid any/all ambiguity. You break this rule, no matter the underlying circumstances, here are the penalties. If you can take opinions out of the mix, that is the way to go...

Finally, do the SafeSports guidelines clearly govern all RTC's? Or do the RTC's have independence from those guidelines? That would also play a substantial part in how this gets resolved.

 

[rivalhawks]

Dude. No. Just no. This can't be a thing. Because then that will always be the argument and true victims will never get justice, EVER.

These relationships RARELY start as coercive or aggressive. Based on mutual respect, it grows. But its wrong. Its wrong for the coach, its wrong for the athlete, its wrong if there is also a team involved. Not necessarily criminal, which is where consent comes in. Other than that? Be a coach and do your job.

If you want to have a relationship with an athlete? Quit that job. There are 7 billion people on this planet.

Let me ask you this, where do you stand on a coach-mother of an athlete relationship? Inappropriate or no?

I don’t think VT was happy with it.

 

[ChiPackHawk]

Hey, I have said multiple times he violated the code of conduct. I never said her "wanting" to changes that part. I simply said it makes a big difference overall.

As far as the punishment goes, I did ask if there is already a standard or precedent. Or, is it handled on a case by case basis?

When the guy is being called a sexual predator, I want way more information before going down that part of the road....

You are correct - being labeled as a sexual predator is all together different than being guilty of poor decisions. And poor decisions can cost the man his job. Just should not make him a felon.

 

[el dub]

100% prohibited

https://championwomen.org/wp-conten...-Policies-and-Boundaries-updated-2020-2-1.pdf

1. SEXUAL CONTACTS OR “ROMANTIC” RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AN ATHLETE AND A PERSON WHO HAS A POSITION OF POWER OVER THE ATHLETE ARE PROHIBITED.

a. “Person with a position of power” includes coaches, administrators, judges, referees, employers, staff, medical personnel, and even volunteers or older athletes and teammates.

b. U.S. Center for SafeSport’s flat prohibition on sexual contact covers children who are under the age of 18. Sexual contact with a child is also prohibited under criminal law; it is a felony and consent is no defense.

c. For those in positions of power, this flat prohibition also includes an athlete that is 18 years old or older, and the athlete “consents” to sexual or romantic contact.

Pro-hib-i-ted….

 

[manatree]

Finally, do the SafeSports guidelines clearly govern all RTC's? Or do the RTC's have independence from those guidelines? That would also play a substantial part in how this gets resolved.

RTCs are certified by USA Wrestling.

 

[vhsalum]

Look, my stance isn't really that far from yours. Seeing how the rules are listed, he had to knowingly break rules. I just think the "punishment" should fit the "crime". To me, that means the willingness/wanting of all parties involved should play a part.

Again, that is why I wanted to see clearly defined rules and also would like to see clearly defined guidelines for how to deal with transgressors. Fireable offenses or those that automatically terminate employment should be listed to avoid any/all ambiguity. You break this rule, no matter the underlying circumstances, here are the penalties. If you can take opinions out of the mix, that is the way to go...

Finally, do the SafeSports guidelines clearly govern all RTC's? Or do the RTC's have independence from those guidelines? That would also play a substantial part in how this gets resolved.

Any organization under USA Wrestling is under the SafeSport guidelines/rules. Violations start an investigation. The investigation will determine the consequences. As small as a formal warning, as far as complete expulsion from any sport under SafeSport purview.

So again, at the least, if this is true, the coach should lose their current job. There have to be consequences that serve as a deterrent to this behavior.

 

[vhsalum]

Look, my stance isn't really that far from yours. Seeing how the rules are listed, he had to knowingly break rules. I just think the "punishment" should fit the "crime". To me, that means the willingness/wanting of all parties involved should play a part.

I think this is the part you get hung up on, and i'm trying to tell you that the times have changed. When it comes to athlete-coach relationship and, really, ANY, unbalanced power relationship - "consent" doesn't exist.

Having a daughter, and really, having a wife who plays no games in this area - i've completely changed my ethos on what constitutes consent in this area. I've done a ton of research in general, so I don't have just one place for you to look - but i challenge you to look into why there's such a paradigm shift in this particular subject.

Basically, it just boils down to - how could it truly be consensual? Even if the athlete pursues the coach, its based on much more than just one person finding another attractive. A coach-athlete relationship, outside of marriage, might be the closest that exists on our planet. Feelings and emotion will be askew and there are real, negative, consequences that happen as a result of said relationships.

 

[el dub]

I think this is the part you get hung up on, and i'm trying to tell you that the times have changed. When it comes to athlete-coach relationship and, really, ANY, unbalanced power relationship - "consent" doesn't exist.

Having a daughter, and really, having a wife who plays no games in this area - i've completely changed my ethos on what constitutes consent in this area. I've done a ton of research in general, so I don't have just one place for you to look - but i challenge you to look into why there's such a paradigm shift in this particular subject.

Basically, it just boils down to - how could it truly be consensual? Even if the athlete pursues the coach, its based on much more than just one person finding another attractive. A coach-athlete relationship, outside of marriage, might be the closest that exists on our planet. Feelings and emotion will be askew and there are real, negative, consequences that happen as a result of said relationships.

Managers and client service staff are prohibited from dating in the agency I work for.

 

[MSU158]

I think this is the part you get hung up on, and i'm trying to tell you that the times have changed. When it comes to athlete-coach relationship and, really, ANY, unbalanced power relationship - "consent" doesn't exist.

Having a daughter, and really, having a wife who plays no games in this area - i've completely changed my ethos on what constitutes consent in this area. I've done a ton of research in general, so I don't have just one place for you to look - but i challenge you to look into why there's such a paradigm shift in this particular subject.

Basically, it just boils down to - how could it truly be consensual? Even if the athlete pursues the coach, its based on much more than just one person finding another attractive. A coach-athlete relationship, outside of marriage, might be the closest that exists on our planet. Feelings and emotion will be askew and there are real, negative, consequences that happen as a result of said relationships.

To be clear, I NEVER once said it was a good decision. I never condoned the relationship. But, I am not the type of person that says a certain type of situation automatically eliminates it being consensual. Mind you, I have a daughter that I love more than I could possibly love anything else. But, that doesn't mean I don't preach to her to make smart decisions and there should be consequences for bad ones.

In this case, it took 2 to tango. Perry is still in violation for his actions and should be punished. But, I absolutely think all the parts of the situation need to be investigated and weighed before a proper punishment could be meted out. If it comes out that he was the aggressor and she felt uncomfortable, then yes I would say fire him right away. However, if she were the aggressor and he resisted for some time, I do think the punishment should be different. Maybe, he should still be fired, but I think the circumstances DO make a difference overall.

Again, I think people should be held accountable for their actions, especially when words like "Sexual Predator" are being thrown around.

Also, I do think how it affected the overall work environment for the entire RTC should be checked into and weighed. If their relationship did cause a hostile work environment for others as well, that should be considered when deciding the consequences.

 

[vhsalum]

To be clear, I NEVER once said it was a good decision. I never condoned the relationship. But, I am not the type of person that says a certain type of situation automatically eliminates it being consensual. Mind you, I have a daughter that I love more than I could possibly love anything else. But, that doesn't mean I don't preach to her to make smart decisions and there should be consequences for bad ones.

In this case, it took 2 to tango. Perry is still in violation for his actions and should be punished. But, I absolutely think all the parts of the situation need to be investigated and weighed before a proper punishment could be meted out. If it comes out that he was the aggressor and she felt uncomfortable, then yes I would say fire him right away. However, if she were the aggressor and he resisted for some time, I do think the punishment should be different. Maybe, he should still be fired, but I think the circumstances DO make a difference overall.

Again, I think people should be held accountable for their actions, especially when words like "Sexual Predator" are being thrown around.

Also, I do think how it affected the overall work environment for the entire RTC should be checked into and weighed. If their relationship did cause a hostile work environment for others as well, that should be considered when deciding the consequences.

It did. It does. It always will.

It doesn't take "2 to tango" - that's the entire point. I encourage you to do a little research into this subject - you're just not getting that no matter who the pursuant is - it's NOT ok and should come with pretty severe consequences to the person with the power.

 

[sstark46]

But, I am not the type of person that says a certain type of situation automatically eliminates it being consensual.

And this is where you are wrong, full stop. This is not an opinion based issue here.

 

[MSU158]

And this is where you are wrong, full stop. This is not an opinion based issue here.

It did. It does. It always will.

It doesn't take "2 to tango" - that's the entire point. I encourage you to do a little research into this subject - you're just not getting that no matter who the pursuant is - it's NOT ok and should come with pretty severe consequences to the person with the power.

Look, I can fully disagree with rules and laws. it doesn't mean I don't have to follow them or don't think Perry should here. If someone breaks the law, as long as the guidelines are clear, there is no opinion on that part. However, there nearly ALWAYS is when deciding the sentencing. That is the part I have been debating here...

So, again, you can whitewash the rule, but there ALWAYS should be a human element. Because, guess what, there always is.

To be clear, to ME, consensual DOES make a difference. It doesn't mean he didn't violate the code, which is the ONLY place opinion doesn't matter. I 100% agree he violated the code and consequences are necessary. However, it is simple common sense that you would look at the "victim" and what that person says about the situation SHOULD make a considerable difference on how you would deal with it if punishment were not already clearly defined regardless of what that "victim" intimates...

Again, maybe he still would need to be let go, but how it is handled decides if he ever gets another job in the field again. To me, that requires more than just saying it being "consensual" doesn't matter...

 

[el dub]

Look, I can fully disagree with rules and laws. it doesn't mean I don't have to follow them or don't think Perry should here. If someone breaks the law, as long as the guidelines are clear, there is no opinion on that part. However, there nearly ALWAYS is when deciding the sentencing. That is the part I have been debating here...

So, again, you can whitewash the rule, but there ALWAYS should be a human element. Because, guess what, there always is.

To be clear, to ME, consensual DOES make a difference. It doesn't mean he didn't violate the code, which is the ONLY place opinion doesn't matter. I 100% agree he violated the code and consequences are necessary. However, it is simple common sense that you would look at the "victim" and what that person says about the situation SHOULD make a considerable difference on how you would deal with it if punishment were not already clearly defined regardless of what that "victim" intimates...

Again, maybe he still would need to be let go, but how it is handled decides if he ever gets another job in the field again. To me, that requires more than just saying it being "consensual" doesn't matter...

Consensual makes no difference with work rules, in this case. Just legality. And that’s two different standards.

 

[bourbon n blues]

You’re a bit fixated on her “wanting” to enter into the relationship. This absolutely does not matter in a boss/ subordinate setting. If they were indeed involved in a relationship while he was coaching her, it’s a violation and HWC has to cut ties with him. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a future lawsuit. The “dumb decisions happen all the time defense” isn’t going to help them during a deposition or on the witness stand.

Yeah, you're right.

 

[MSU158]

Consensual makes no difference with work rules, in this case. Just legality. And that’s two different standards.

I think those going against me aren't fully understanding my stance. I am not saying "consensual" negates him violatating the rule. I agree that "consent" does NOT matter when determining that part. He 100% broke the rule. I am in no way denying that part.

But, I do think it should come into play when deciding punishment, if punishment guidelines are not already founded. To me, that is just simple common sense. It's sort of like speeding. No matter the reason, if you are going faster than the posted speed limit, you are speeding. However, racing to the hospital with your severely injured child is a hell of a lot different than deciding to see how fast your car can go. Most people would be considerably more lenient on the former and much more harsh on the latter...

 

[texas twister]

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

MSU - i'm going to challenge you to change your mind/stance on this. I understand that may be hard, but there's just NO justification for this relationship. IT DOESN'T MATTER if the athlete pursued the coach. And more importantly - it shouldn't.

You keep saying criminal - no, it's not criminal. But it is a hard line for SafeSports and Perry knew that. So no, there shouldn't be any subjectivity/leniency on the issue of punishment. Not that I know exactly what that is, but losing his job should be the MINIMUM.

MSU158 has clearly stated that it is wrong and bad judgment. It is not horrendous if it is consensual, bad judgment, grounds for dismissal - yes. Criminal - no. (all contingent upon it being consensual and not predatory)

 

[MSU158]

MSU158 has clearly stated that it is wrong and bad judgment. It is not horrendous if it is consensual, bad judgment, grounds for dismissal - yes. Criminal - no. (all contingent upon it being consensual and not predatory)

Thank you. At least someone understands me...

 

[sstark46]

I think those going against me aren't fully understanding my stance. I am not saying "consensual" negates him violatating the rule. I agree that "consent" does NOT matter when determining that part. He 100% broke the rule. I am in no way denying that part.

But, I do think it should come into play when deciding punishment, if punishment guidelines are not already founded. To me, that is just simple common sense. It's sort of like speeding. No matter the reason, if you are going faster than the posted speed limit, you are speeding. However, racing to the hospital with your severely injured child is a hell of a lot different than deciding to see how fast your car can go. Most people would be considerably more lenient on the former and much more harsh on the latter...

Everyone understands your point, the issue is that your point is wrong. "Consent" doesn't enter the picture in a scenario like this because consent cannot be given in the first place when there is a power imbalance

 

[so cal hawkfan]

To be clear, I NEVER once said it was a good decision. I never condoned the relationship. But, I am not the type of person that says a certain type of situation automatically eliminates it being consensual. Mind you, I have a daughter that I love more than I could possibly love anything else. But, that doesn't mean I don't preach to her to make smart decisions and there should be consequences for bad ones.

In this case, it took 2 to tango. Perry is still in violation for his actions and should be punished. But, I absolutely think all the parts of the situation need to be investigated and weighed before a proper punishment could be meted out. If it comes out that he was the aggressor and she felt uncomfortable, then yes I would say fire him right away. However, if she were the aggressor and he resisted for some time, I do think the punishment should be different. Maybe, he should still be fired, but I think the circumstances DO make a difference overall.

Again, I think people should be held accountable for their actions, especially when words like "Sexual Predator" are being thrown around.

Also, I do think how it affected the overall work environment for the entire RTC should be checked into and weighed. If their relationship did cause a hostile work environment for others as well, that should be considered when deciding the consequences.

Bro if you are in a “consensual” relationship with a subordinate, stop immediately. I get the sense from reading dozens of your posts that you are bright, but you’re losing me (and everyone else) on this thread.

If she came on to him, he must be the responsible person to nip it in the bud. That’s why he’s in a position of authority. He is a expected to make responsible decisions.

I’ll give you a for instance. Years ago where I work a male manager (who was also my boss) engaged in a relationship with a female subordinate. The subordinate instigated and was a willing participant in said relationship. The relationship was not true love as it turned out and ended. She happened to be a terrible employee (I supervised her and in my 25 years I’ve not seen anyone worse) and when it came time for her eval, she was pretty upset with her poor rating. She sued for gender bias, hostile work environment and sexual harassment. Ultimately, she was awarded just under a million dollars and the manager was demoted.

These rules are in place to protect the organization from litigation and the subordinates from potential predatory behavior from those in positions of power. Additionally, these relationships can ruin the morale within organizations as other subordinates can and do feel slighted by feelings of favoritism.

If he did indeed participate in said relationship, Mark CANNOT and should not be allowed to continue to coach within HWC. Period.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Everyone understands your point, the issue is that your point is wrong. "Consent" doesn't enter the picture in a scenario like this because consent cannot be given in the first place when there is a power imbalance

Exactly, a sexual relationship can result in tossing impartiality aside for one example. Giving your companion favorable treatment over other athletes or repercussions over some disagreement between the two parties.

 

[texas twister]

Everyone understands your point, the issue is that your point is wrong. "Consent" doesn't enter the picture in a scenario like this because consent cannot be given in the first place when there is a power imbalance

So, you think he will be convicted and serve time behind bars rather than just be dismissed? Provide your legal source for support of your statement.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Bro if you are in a “consensual” relationship with a subordinate, stop immediately. I get the sense from reading dozens of your posts they you are bright, but you’re losing me (and everyone else) on this thread.

If she came on to him, he must be the responsible person to nip it in the bud. That’s why he’s in a position of authority. He is a expected to make responsible decisions.

I’ll give you a for instance. Years ago where I work a male manager (who was also my boss) engaged in a relationship with a female subordinate. The subordinate instigated and was a willing participant in said relationship. The relationship was not true love as it turned out and ended. She happened to be a terrible employee (I supervised her and in my 25 years I’ve not seen anyone worse) and when it came time for her eval, she was pretty upset with her poor rating. She sued for gender bias, hostile work environment and sexual harassment. Ultimately, she was awarded just under a million dollars and the manager was demoted.

These rules are in place to protect the organization from litigation and the subordinates from potential predatory behavior from those in positions of power. Additionally, these relationships can ruin the morale within organizations as other subordinates can and do feel slighted by feelings of favoritism.

If he did indeed participate in said relationship, Mark CANNOT and should not be allowed to continue to coach within HWC. Period.

And there you go favoritism and retaliation. then who pays? The company and the dummy who thought everything would be cool.

 

[MSU158]

Everyone understands your point, the issue is that your point is wrong. "Consent" doesn't enter the picture in a scenario like this because consent cannot be given in the first place when there is a power imbalance

And that is where we 100% disagree. Consent doesn't enter the picture for breaking the rules based on "power imbalance". However, it can and should when determining consequences.

Hell, "consent' DOES MATTER even in the listing of the different sexual transgressions in the code itself. Is there not a clearly defined difference between "power imbalance" and the other forms of sexual assault listed? Is consent not the key difference between them?

Or, are you trying to say that in a power imbalance situation there is no consent and therefor it is rape???

 

[MSU158]

Bro if you are in a “consensual” relationship with a subordinate, stop immediately. I get the sense from reading dozens of your posts they you are bright, but you’re losing me (and everyone else) on this thread.

If she came on to him, he must be the responsible person to nip it in the bud. That’s why he’s in a position of authority. He is a expected to make responsible decisions.

I’ll give you a for instance. Years ago where I work a male manager (who was also my boss) engaged in a relationship with a female subordinate. The subordinate instigated and was a willing participant in said relationship. The relationship was not true love as it turned out and ended. She happened to be a terrible employee (I supervised her and in my 25 years I’ve not seen anyone worse) and when it came time for her eval, she was pretty upset with her poor rating. She sued for gender bias, hostile work environment and sexual harassment. Ultimately, she was awarded just under a million dollars and the manager was demoted.

These rules are in place to protect the organization from litigation and the subordinates from potential predatory behavior from those in positions of power. Additionally, these relationships can ruin the morale within organizations as other subordinates can and do feel slighted by feelings of favoritism.

If he did indeed participate in said relationship, Mark CANNOT and should not be allowed to continue to coach within HWC. Period.

Bro, I am not arguing against the rule nor saying there isn't a need for it. I am simply saying the "how" MATTERS after clearly citing him for the violation. It isn't "black and white" like my antagonists are trying to purport. This isn't a science experiment, taking place in a vacuum. There are key components that can and should be looked at.

Again, for the umpteenth time, he is 100% in violation of the code of conduct. Based on the definitions and rules provided, there is zero debate on that subject. However, to me THAT is where the "black and white" part being used against me stops.

Hell, consent determines if he actually committed a sexual crime. If that can be determined, it can also be determined when deciding punishment in the work setting...

Editted to add: Mark hasn't coached at HWC for quite some time, correct?

 

[bourbon n blues]

And that is where we 100% disagree. Consent doesn't enter the picture for breaking the rules based on "power imbalance". However, it can and should when determining consequences.

Hell, "consent' DOES MATTER even in the listing of the different sexual transgressions in the code itself. Is there not a clearly defined difference between "power imbalance" and the other forms of sexual assault listed? Is consent not the key difference between them?

Or, are you trying to say that in a power imbalance situation there is no consent and therefor it is rape???

JFC, take the l already.