One of the "mitigating factors" I saw Okokok cite was that Vinny was asking the girl to request the pictures either a) because he thought it was a joke or b) he wanted evidence. Either way neither of those things is or ever should be a mitigating factor. If you think it's a joke, maybe don't joke about sexual violence and bring a 13-year-old into a "joke" about sexual violence. If you think it might true, maybe report it like you're supposed to and have the experts do the evidence-gathering instead of victimizing a 13-year-old. And, even then he messed up AGAIN by not reporting this to the police when he found out it was true and instead reported it only to people that had incentive to cover things up. So, yeah, I don't think he deserves to get off as light as he did even with the alleged "mitigating factors."
Just wanted to add a bit to this. The reason that I theorize that this could've contributed to Vinny's sanction was because I saw a few people asking why he got one of the shortest sanctions when he initiated everything. The Center does look into power dynamics and intentions when sanctioning. There are other potential factors that I believe played into the shorter sanction. I still think the sanction was way too short - even if my theory is correct and the Center couldn't find him & Silvia liable of other violations due to reasons out of their control.
Let this be a lesson to the skating community on the meaning of the word "mandatory." I'm sure Zimmerman and Fontana feel like they've been made an example. That is exactly one of the points of the sentence. I suspect they feel that others have gotten away with far worse (and I suspect they're right about that). Again, that is one of the points of the sentence.
The sentence, at least for Zimmerman, is fair in my view. This was a gross, inexcusable lapse in judgment, unquestionably wrong. There should be punishment, but there should also be possibility for redemption. I can't support the people calling for a lifetime ban, treating one person's knowledge that someone sent else a d*ck pic to a minor the same way as another person's actual commission of rape, molestation, physical abuse, etc. against a minor (or anyone). Both are wrong, but there is a world of difference between the two.
If we want Safe Sport to work properly, we need degrees of punishment, the same way that exists in the criminal justice system. If everything is going to result in a broad-brush lifetime ban, I suspect witnesses will be more likely to remain silent and those within the sport will (continue to) view Safe Sport with skepticism and lack of trust.
This is a victory, and the punishment (at least for Zimmerman) is entirely appropriate.
So, I'm obviously looking at this from a different perspective than most but there are a few things I really disagree with here.
1. They actively intimidated a middle-school aged girl into not reporting to the proper authorities - going so far as to slut-shame and threaten her. That goes way beyond a "gross, inexcusable lapse in judgement" IMO
2. You're assuming that the only thing they had knowledge about (and subsequently intimidated the survivor into not reporting) was the December 2017 picture incident.
3. When looking at potential for redemption, you also need to look at the perpetrator's response to the investigation and sanction. Zimmerman and Fontana (along with their supporters) believe they've been unfairly punished by the Center. They don't think they did anything wrong. They're planning to appeal the sanction. Redemption requires a person to be accountable for their actions & recognize where they went wrong. Zimmerman and Fontana have not done any of this. IMO they got lucky due to a variety of factors that meant the Center couldn't sanction them for other things.