Three more coaches have been permanently banned by USA Swimming as of January 2018. Nathan Weddle, James Cutrone and Christian Valcarce now appear on the permanent ban list published by the swimming federation.
Weddle was a 43-year-old coach with the Capital Area Swim Team in Raleigh, N.C. He was arrested in late December on allegations that he had had sex with a 15-year-old girl, according to the local FOX affiliate. Weddle was the head coach of the Capital Area Swim Team and the girl was one of his swimmers. The report says the alleged abuse happened between August 2017 and December 2017.
He was banned under three USA Swimming Code of Conduct statutes:
- 304.3.6: The sale or distribution of illegal drugs or the illegal sale or distribution of any substance listed on FINA’s recognized list of banned substances.
- 304.3.7: The use of illegal drugs in the presence of an athlete, by a coach, official, trainer, or a person who, in the context of swimming, is in a position of authority over, that athlete.
- 304.3.19: Any other material and intentional act, conduct or omission not provided for above, which is detrimental to the image or reputation of USA Swimming, a LSC or the sport of swimming.
Cutrone was arrested and charged in early December as part of a massive child pornography sting in New Jersey. The 54-year-old had been a coach at the Old Bridge-Freehold YMCA and had previously coached at Carnegie Mellon, Loyola and Johns Hopkins, per a 2016 press release about his hiring.
He was banned under two USA Swimming Code of Conduct statutes:
- 304.3.5: Conviction of, imposition of a deferred sentence for, or any plea of guilty or no contest at any time, past or present, or the existence of any pending charges, for (i) any felony or (ii) any offense involving use, possession, distribution or intent to distribute illegal drugs or substances.
- 304.3.17: Violation of the SafeSport code.
Valcarce, 24, was arrested in October for child pornography, per Utah’s Standard-Examiner. After finding several hundred photos and videos downloaded to an IP address, police obtained a warrant to search the location of the IP address, which was Valcarce’s home. Police found more than 200 images of child pornography on a thumb drive. It’s unclear where Valcarce coached, though the Standard-Examiner says he was a children’s swim coach.
He was banned under two USA Swimming Code of Conduct statutes:
- 304.3.5: Conviction of, imposition of a deferred sentence for, or any plea of guilty or no contest at any time, past or present, or the existence of any pending charges, for (i) any felony or (ii) any offense involving use, possession, distribution or intent to distribute illegal drugs or substances.
- 304.3.17: Violation of the SafeSport code.
The three additions also represent another, broader shift in reporting on these topics: USA Swimming used to tweet out banned coaches from the @SwimSafeSport account when they were added to the banned list, but these three did not appear on the Twitter page when they were banned and haven’t appeared in the month since.
Why not place a link to the banned coaches list in the article? Since the article omitted it, here it is. https://www.usaswimming.org/utility/landing-pages/safe-sport/banned-member-list—perm
It’s also strange that the list of individuals temporarily suspended only includes names of those suspended by USA Swimming’s National Board of Review and does not include the names of individuals suspended by a Zone Board of Review or LSC Board of Review.
I have a question about this. Each one mentioned something sexual in nature yet, the code cited by USA Swimming never mentions that at all. It is very vague about the wording and I am trying to figure out how their obvious misdeeds fit into the cited reasons.
For example: 304.3.19: Any other material and intentional act, conduct or omission not provided for above, which is detrimental to the image or reputation of USA Swimming, a LSC or the sport of swimming.
Is that really the best that USA Swimming can do to give a reason for banning a convicted pedophile? Or the other ones above… why not some code that explicitly says banned for the deferred sentence,… Read more »
2 Cents – if you read through, most are SLIGHTLY more specific, though not entirely, with the 304.3.19 just sort of a catchall add-on.
It’s also important to remember that not every individual on the list is banned for sexual misconduct (and for that matter, nor was every one a coach). A small percentage are for drugs or financial crimes.
Yeah, I figured it was that very vague wording about conduct detrimental or harmful to the image of USA swimming or whatever. My point is still, why not explicitly say sex crime or crime of sexual nature involving a minor? Why the need to be vague unless you are trying to cover it up? I know not everyone is banned for sexual misconduct, but in this article, the 3 people mentioned also mentioned a crime sexual in nature.
I’m just frustrated with the wording and very curious why it is what it is as it seems to protect the predators.
2 Cents – not everyone banned has committed a crime, so the wording you’ve suggested would be more specific and require more rules to be written. More rules that are more specific can have upsides or downsides. It can in some cases make banning people who should be banned easier, in some cases harder.
In this case, it does seem odd. This may be an administrative error. If you look at the list of permanently banned individuals, the rules Jared cited are the rules broken, but, for example, in older versions of the code 304.3.5. I think there’s a possibility that the 2018 code has been renumbered and their public list hasn’t caught up. I’ll ask.
I didn’t sit in… Read more »
My guess is there will be a lot of these in the coming weeks, as USA Swimming digs through old, previously passed-over reports in order to give the impression of vigilance.