Three Code of Conduct Changes Recommended by USA Swimming Rules Committee

  34 Braden Keith | August 28th, 2013 | National, News

Location:               Page 96 – 304.3  Code of Conduct

Proposed by:        Safe Sport Committee

Purpose:                To comply with the Minimum Standards for Safe Sport mandated by the USOC; if not adopted by an NGB by 12/31/2013, the NGB risks losing USOC high performance funding.  USA Swimming meets or exceeds all of the Safe Sport Minimum Standards except the one regarding athlete-coach romantic or sexual relationships which began during the sport relationship and involves an imbalance of power.

Recommendation: The Rules and Regulations Committee recommends approval, subject to an investigation by the Safe Sport Committee regarding the minimum standards set by the USOC.

Effective Date:      Immediately

304.3  The following shall be considered violations of the USA Swimming Code of Conduct:

.8     A      [unchanged]

B      [unchanged]

C     Romantic or sexual relationships, even if it is a consensual relationship between adults, which began during the swimming relationship, between athletes or other participants and those individuals (i) having direct supervisory or evaluative control, or (ii) who are in a position of power and trust over the athlete or other participant. Except in circumstances where no imbalance of power exists, coaches have this direct supervisory or evaluative control and are in a position of power and trust over those athletes or participants they coach. The prohibition on romantic or sexual relationships does not include those relationships where it can be demonstrated that there is no imbalance of power. For example, this prohibition does not apply to a relationship between two spouses or life partners which existed prior to the swimming relationship. For factors that may be relevant to determining whether an imbalance of power exists, consult the USOC’s Athlete Protection Policy.

Our Discussion: This one was already voted down by the membership at the United States Aquatic Sports convention House of Delegates meeting in 2012, but it is back on the table in 2013.

Here’s where the big conflict between different groups lies in this rule. Most would think it’s a bad idea for a 45 year old coach to have a relationship with an 18 or 19 year old member of his or her team. It’s not healthy for their coach-athlete relationship, and it’s not good for the other members of that team who would not necessarily be treated with the same attention.

But is this rule even legal to implement, restricting relationships between consenting adults, given USA Swimming’s status as the holders of the key to the Olympics and other international-level meets in this country? Is the rule too over-reaching? Would it, say, keep Natalie Coughlin from swimming a practice with her husband Ethan Hall, who is a swim coach?

There’s lots of reasoning in the proposed rule to help protect against these situations, such as saying the rule doesn’t apply anymore if the two sides are married, but then suddenly enforcing the rules becomes incredibly complicated. Would it be better for a coach/athlete to get married in order to maintain their coach/athlete relationship? Who is going to prove when a relationship actually started, when the answer will probably so frequently become “the day before he or she started swimming for me”? Why should there be an issue if, say, a single coach and a single athlete, within the bounds of their jurisdiction (state, federal laws, etc.) wished to engage in a relationship while continuing to train one-on-one? Who is this harming?

This is one of those situations that is incredibly complex to legislate, because lines must be drawn somewhere, and there’s no clear consensus on where those lines should be. By its nature, this is by no means a bad rule, but it reaches a level of complexity that will make a lot of people uncomfortable with it existing.

On the other hand, at the moment, everyone’s hands are tied by the USOC decision. USA Swimming would lose a lot of funding if they didn’t follow. My guess is that the first time this comes up anywhere under the umbrella of USOC, it will end up in court, where we’ll get a better idea of its enforceability.

Location:               Page 97 – 304 Code of Conduct

Proposed by:        Safe Sport Committee

Purpose:                To add sexual abuse by a minor athlete against another minor athlete as a violation of the Code of Conduct.

Recommendation: The Rules and Regulations Committee recommends approval.

Effective Date:      Immediately

304.3  The following shall be considered violations of the USA Swimming Code of Conduct:

.1-7      [No changes]

.8     A      Any inappropriate sexual conduct or advance, or other inappropriate oral, written, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed towards an athlete by (i) a coach member or other non-athlete member, or (ii) any other adult participating in any capacity whatso­ever in the activities of USA Swimming (whether such adult is a member or not).

B      Any act of sexual harassment, including without limitation unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other inappropriate oral, written, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature in connection with or incidental to a USA Swimming-related activity by any person participating in the affairs or activities of USA Swimming (whether such person is a member or not) directed toward any member or other person participating in the affairs or activities of USA Swimming.

C     Any peer-to-peer sexual abuse.  For the purposes of the Code of Conduct, the term “peer-to-peer sexual abuse” shall mean any unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature directed towards a minor athlete by another minor athlete.

Our Discussion: This rule would make sexual abuse by a minor athlete against another minor athlete a violation of the Code of Conduct. There’s at least one instance on the current banned list of an athlete who is banned for sexual abuse of another minor, but in that instance the person banned was tried in court, so he fell under other auspices of the code of conduct.

This rule would seem to extend the reach and definition of “sexual abuse” beyond simply cases that preceded in front of a court.

Location:               Page 96 – 304.3  Code of Conduct

Proposed by:        David Berkoff, Paris Jacobs, Tim Bauer, Stu Hixon, Mary Jo Swalley, Robert Broyles, Brandon Drawz, Dave Anderson, Ben Britten

Purpose:                                Enforcement of the USA Swimming list of Individuals Permanently Suspended or Ineligible (“Banned List”).

Persons currently listed on the USA Swimming Banned List are attempting to work with USA Swimming athlete members and/or their families and/or USA Swimming member clubs.  Proper protection of USA Swimming athlete members includes enforcement of the Banned List and the prohibition against banned coaches working with USA Swimming members.  Enforcement should include disciplinary action against any USA Swimming member club or coach who facilitates or aids and abets a person on the Banned List to be involved in any USA Swimming activities, including the coaching of current USA Swimming athlete members.

Recommendation: The Rules & Regulations Committee recommends approval.

304.3  The following shall be considered violations of the USA Swimming Code of Conduct:

[.1 -.13 No changes]

.14   For any USA Swimming member club or coach to

A      allow any person who has been placed on the USA Swimming list of “Individuals Permanently Suspended or Ineligible” to coach or instruct any of its athlete members,

B      aid or abet coaching or instruction of athletes by any person who has been placed on the USA Swimming list of “Individuals Permanently Suspended or Ineligible,” or

C     allow any person who has been placed on the USA Swimming list of “Individuals Permanently Suspended or Ineligible” to have an ownership interest in such USA Swimming club or its related entities.

[Note: Section citations in 403.1, 403.2, and 406.1 will be revised as necessary after the Convention so that this new item falls under NBOR jurisdiction.]

[re-number current .14 and remaining subsections]

Our Discussion: This rule would give more teeth to the definition of “permanent ban” and what is and is not allowed for these people. An athlete, completely independently of their club, could still swim for a coach, but no club could help that athlete do so, provide pool space, etc. It would also limit people on the banned list from having an ownership interest in a USA Swimming club or its related entities.

According to USA Swimming board member David  Berkoff, there are at least two instances in which a banned member has attempted to work with USA Swimming members, their families, or member clubs through a private enterprise, and in at least one instance, that of Rick Curl, a club (the Curl-Burke Swim Club, since restructured and reborn as NCAP) was partially owned by a banned coach.

Leave a Reply

34 Comments on "Three Code of Conduct Changes Recommended by USA Swimming Rules Committee"

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

Brock Turner banned for life? REE-DICK-KULL Less….
Even Mike Tyson was not banned for life from boxing and
is a monster compared to BT…. I suspect many of the former
Olympic medal winners and even USA Swimming powers that be,
have steroid history and their own demons in their past. FOR LIFE.
How does this help him grow, mature, and produce. Trust me folks,
this girl is known locally and AIN’T NO ANGEL…. Her sister left her at
the party, LEFT HER. Her Mom let her get drunk at their home and then go to a party….

The way I read the sexual relationship proposal – it seems that if an athlete and a coach wanted a relationship, the athlete can swim with a different coach within the club or the coach can coach a different group. This still does not prevent the fifty year old coach from dating an eighteen year old girl who swims in the club but does not swim in this coach’s group.

How about rules about the NBR actually following the rules as approved by the House of Delegates and the Rule of Law instead of going after whistleblowers. It has become more of kill the messenger, especially with Bryan Cave and the recently departed members.

I agree with COLKLINK. USA Swimming should follow the rules and regulations already on the books (including the power to act on state and federal laws). There is no point to continually create new violations when they won’t hold offenders accountable for current violations. How many people have been banned under 304.3.14 – Any act of fraud, deception, or dishonesty in connection with any USA Swimming-related activity? I think all three of these recommendations will fail. Adult relationships are not illegal. Peer to peer sexual abuse is too subjective. Many schools learned this with the zero tolerance policy (it’s pretty bad when a 6 year old boy gets suspended for saying his teacher was “cute”). Would it be considered aiding… Read more »

Sam,

Under what kind of circumstance do you imagine it would be ok, or even wise, for a coach to give ANY contact information to a banned coach? And to what possible end? The role of a coach/USA Swimming should alway be to protect swimmers from such people. That is why the gaping hole in the proposed 304.3.14 is so negligent. It still allows for the continued involvement of banned individuals in USA Swimming.

Steve,

The discussion above states that an athlete could still swim for a banned coach independently of their club. What if an athlete wants to get in touch with a banned member and asks a coach for the phone number of the banned member? I didn’t say that the coach should give contact information about an athlete to a banned member.

Sam, The proposed 304.3.14.B states: “B aid or abet coaching or instruction of athletes by any person who has been placed on the USA Swimming list of “Individuals Permanently Suspended or Ineligible,” or” It seems clear that for a USA Swimming member to provide contact information to assist a swimmer to be coached by a banned USA Swimming member would be a violation – as it should be. Why would anyone want to encourage or help a swimmer to work with someone who has been banned by USA Swimming? Think of the liability the the coach and the club would be opening themselves up to should anything happen to that athlete while working with the banned coach. There is a… Read more »
wpDiscuz

About Braden Keith

Braden Keith

The most common question asked about Braden Keith is "when does he sleep?" That's because Braden has, in two years in the game, become one of the most prolific writers in swimming at a level that has earned him the nickname "the machine" in some circles. He first got his feet …

Read More »