>how many times more sexual assaults happened there than
>convictions? 10x? 20x? probably higher.

So you would willfully NOT look into it at all?


Seems stupid given all the things I said.

On your side of argument, if you are wrong and he turns out to be a serial child molester who got off on a technicality, or if he does something at the job and people say hey did you ever look into that 1996 sex assault, and you say "no, why would i have it was two decades ago!"...you lose your good name, lots of money, your coach and staff, maybe the GM, more money to a PR firms to salvage situation, and probably some advertisers to boot.


On the one hand maybe you try to find out if everything is good with the huge investment you are making. Even on the remote chance that this is something bigger than it looks. This option you might lose some time and a negligible amount of money, but you essentially risk nothing.


And you pick option one?



God help us all