[dragonwriter]

> There is also strong cultural assumption that if coach is tough it is good.

There is some of that, but more a factor is that the measure of "good" is competitive success, and by that measure lots of tough -- even outright abusive -- coaches are good. You have to face that head-on to deal with the problem, that its not just a mistaken assumption of quality but often a flawed (because it does not view clear and visible verbal/emotional/physical abuse short of [but which can easily be a surface behind which hides] sexual abuse as a problem so long as success is achieved) but objective standard of quality.

[watwut]

It is really just not only that. Though is seen a good among some people even if results are not superior. You can't be widely incompetent, but beyond that there is a lot of subjectivity.

The actual competitive level will hurt either way, but the abuse itself is not actually raising performance.

If you look at Larry Nassar scandal, he did not had superior measurable results. He just created aura of superiority around him. Altrought he was not framing himself as tough, he pretended to be gentle doctor.