@buechsr : What I don't like is suspending the athlete before the facts come out. Many of these athletes have limited opportunities to participate. We don't put people in jail till we prove their innocence. We shouldn't suspend someone until they are proven guilty, that's my beef. By temporarily suspending him before the fact finding is depriving him due process which means the athlete cannot compete till resolved. I understand and sympathize with your feelings, we just don't agree with the process. This isn't the NFL where you collect a pay check while suspended.
We have a right to confront our accuser, not with safe sport. There is no time limit, are we to go back 15 yrs, how about 30 yrs?, and I believe that some arbitrator should not have the sole power to make the decision. Here is a quote from the article: Although Klein and Estey disagree on the exact nature of SafeSport's perceived inadequacy, they agree that proceedings related to SafeSport issues should be handled by law enforcement and in a court of law. Please read the whole article, many of my objections are in the article.
Believe me, I am totally in when it comes to protection of our kids, but not at the expense of trashing due process. Look at what's happening in our education institutions. There are those who insist on 20 or more pronouns for gender. It can be considered a hate crime at some universities if the proper pronoun is not used. Imagine being at a athletic event, and some one files a hate speech complaint to safe sport over pronoun gender. Think it can't happen, it already is at schools.
Safe sport has nothing to do with me or has no influence on my decision not to join AWSA. That ship sailed years ago and there are others in this conversation who have also stated those same reasons. It's simple, want to ski, take the class. I'm not advocating one way or the other, your choice. Just wonder what the next thing is coming down the line. Someone mentioned get the jab or no ski, wonder what would happen then?