I guess my term would be ‘in denial’ rather than ‘knows’.
I know this seems to be a fine distinction, but it’s important to find out whether Joe actually knew or just put his fingers in his ears and screamed ‘LA LA LA!’. One is passive, the other active.
Inaction falls mostly in the moral realm, occasionally in the legal realm of negligence if severe enough. Active is no question in the moral realm, and very much falls in the legal realm as conspiracy.
If the former, then other than lawsuits, what has been done to Joe is about all we can do, unless his negligence is proved to be egregious to the point where it can be proven he SHOULD have known. If the latter, then the spotlight needs to be put back on Joe and his ass thrown on the grill.
IMO it’s very important we keep those distinctions very clear and don’t throw unproven conjecture around.
On of the ramifications of this is, you most likely won’t see anymore coaches over the age of 70.