It time for the majority of the posters replying to this post to grow up. Personal attacks on other posters, attackes on coaches who are identified by name, spreading disinformation, and thinly veiled hidden agendas, are wrong, irrelevant, and potentially defamitory. Period. Grow up. Identify the issues, discuss them rationally, and if you have a suggestion of how to resolve/address them, then do so. I suspect none of us, know the exactly what, if anything happened, why it happened, or the particulars thereof. I suspect, that reality is something far different than what has been alledged by anyone associated with the issues.
I think few comments are warranted regarding the processes involved if an allegation is made against a coach, or for that matter, anyone who is involved with children. Any allegation has a lasting effect, and potentially a devasting effect on that person's curent job, future livelihood, and reputation. This is true even if the allegation is 100% false, and made maliciously.
Once the allegation is made, for risk management reasons, the organization involved should and normally does take action, such as administrative suspension. The sanctioning body of the organization gets actively involve, e.g. a state governing body. It is charged with the duty of doing a due and diligent investigation. It interviews persons with knowledge. It may conduct a hearing if such is warranted. The process is quasi judicial.
For risk management reasons, this process, IMO, favors the purported accuser. A person accussed of an act is not cleared if the allegation is supported by reasonable "evidence", which may, if credible, be the accuser's statement unsubstantiated by any other evidence. A person accussed of an act is cleared if the allegation is not supported by the evidence presented. The burden of proof in these types of situations varies but is generally exceeding low, biased toward the alleged victim, and likely, well below the burden required in our courts, e.g., ponderance of evidence (most civil cases), clear congent and convincing (some civil cases) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases).
Even though there may be no evidence supporting the allegation and a person is cleared of any wrongdoing, an employer may still feel it appropriate to take some action, such as a re-assignment of duties. This is not indicative that the "accused" was guility, but a recognition that we live in a world of sue happy parents, who resort to name calling, and slamming clubs and coaches merely because their dks (who are all the next Mia Hamm) don't get enough playing time, or were told by the coach not to follow their parent's "playing instructions", or some other silly reason.
More than half of you will not like my comments because I pick on parents who need reality checks. To them I say "grow up." You will understand my comments in 10 years, when your dks are out of sports, and when you wake up one day and actually realize that there more important things in your life. Till then give me more negative karma to again prove my points.