French tennis coach jailed for rape
A former tennis coach in France who raped young students at his academy has been jailed for eight years.
The verdict in Lyon ended a seven-year legal case that began when a former ranked player published a book describing years of abuse by Regis de Camaret.
The court also barred 70-year-old Camaret from working in tennis for life.
The case against Camaret began in 2005 with accusations from former player Isabelle Demongeot, who wrote a book describing years of abuse.
Several other women later came forward with accusations that Camaret raped or sexually abused them when they trained in the 1980s and 1990s.
The statute of limitations had run out for most of the accusers, but he was tried based on complaints by two former players.
Camaret denied all the accusations against him, insisting that the atmosphere at his academy was "conducive to flings".
Former world number three player Nathalie Tauziat gave evidence on his behalf at the trial.
Tears flowed among some former trainees after yesterday's verdict came down.
"Well, finally, tonight, he's in prison," said an emotional Ms Demongeot, who was once ranked number two in France, and whose case was beyond the statute of limitations. "We are all very moved, and drained."
Karine Pomares and Stephanie Carrouget - the two civil parties to the state's case and who gave evidence - exchanged long hugs, crying.
"We didn't let it all out for nothing," Ms Carrouget said, according to Sipa news agency.
Defence lawyer Emmanuel Daoud said the case amounted to "a trial by proxy" and argued that critics had wanted Camaret to pay for crimes beyond the statute of limitations. "I don't call that justice," he said.
But Mr Daoud never rejected the accusations filed against his client, saying to Camaret, who cried repeatedly during the proceedings: "Regis, you failed your moral obligations."
The court showed clemency compared to the prosecutors' request for a 10 to 12-year prison sentence. The defence team wanted the case dismissed, arguing that Camaret should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Investigating judges had initially tried to throw out the case for a lack of evidence before state prosecutors appealed against that decision.
