USA Swimming Releases Statement on Rick Curl Hearing

  11 Braden Keith | July 25th, 2012 | National, News

USA Swimming has released a statement regarding the emergency hearing that has been scheduled with Curl Burke Swim Club founder Rick Curl:

USA Swimming was provided with information late Friday afternoon which enabled it to initiate the Board of Review process. We requested an expedited hearing on Monday and have invited the alleged victim to testify. We hope she will take part in this process, as reporting remains an integral part of the Safe Sport program.

In order to protect the integrity of the case, I cannot comment further on its details except to confirm that USA Swimming has initiated the process in place to deal with complaints of sexual misconduct. The reporting process is one element of USA Swimming’s comprehensive Safe Sport program which includes efforts in each of six different areas:  Polices & Guidelines, Screening & Selection, Training & Education, Monitoring & Supervision, Recognizing, Reporting, & Responding and Engagement & Feedback.

For more on USA Swimming’s Safe Sport program, please visit

Leave a Reply

11 Comments on "USA Swimming Releases Statement on Rick Curl Hearing"

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
4 years 2 months ago

USA Swimming is LYING! They had the confidential agreement six months ago. The only reason they are having the bogus emergency hearing is that the agreement was sent by Davies representatives to the Washington Post and they published an article. Our sport is corrupt!

4 years 2 months ago

Then you need to send Shipley proof that USA swimming has been sitting on it that long. At this point, the more information the better . Time to clean house.

4 years 2 months ago

From: B. Robert Allard
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:20 PM
To: ‘Young, Richard’
Subject: RE: Initiation of NBOR Proceeding Against Richard J. Curl

Dear Mr. Young:

I have told you repeatedly that your NBOR process is a sham and we do not want to legitimize it by attending. That position will not change. A statement has been given to your investigator. You have the settlement agreement. You have what you need. My client is not going to submit this matter to a party who is judge, jury and executioner all wrapped up into one.

It would help if your client would stop releasing outright false information. For example, today it was indicated by Ms. Fabos:

“USA Swimming was provided with information late Friday afternoon which enabled it to initiate the Board of Review process. We requested an expedited hearing on Monday and have invited the alleged victim to testify. We hope she will take part in this process, as reporting remains an integral part of the Safe Sport program.”

This is an outright lie. There is nothing which I told your client late Friday afternoon which it did not already know. As you already pointed out, the release agreement was provided to you months ago. The media spin that has been provided by Ms. Fabos is that USA Swimming has acted as swiftly as possible and the converse it true- USA Swimming sat on this information and did not do a thing until I wrote my email and involved the press.

Your client has also created the false impression that my client is asking for “money” to testify. All she asked for were expenses associated with travel. You have cast my client in a false light.

Please immediately instruct Ms. Fabos to issue a retraction and otherwise tell your client to stop spreading lies and defaming my client.

As to your statement as to an improper contact, you are entirely wrong and your understanding of our laws here are misplaced. Do what you have to do. I have nothing to hide. Remember that I am not the one who has been sanctioned over $25,000 in the Jane Doe San Jose matter and been the subject of an published California appellate court decision for attorney misconduct. We also note that USA Swimming’s legal tactics were the subject of the issuance of a sanction award for hundreds of thousands of dollars for attorney misconduct by former USA Swimming attorney Eric Anderson (who also defended USA Swimming in the Jane Doe matter) in a blistering written decision. A bit like the pot calling the kettle black, no?

Robert Allard, Esq.
Corsiglia, Mc Mahon and Allard, LLP
96 North Third Street, Suite 620
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 289-1417
(408) 289-8127 (fax)
[email protected]

4 years 2 months ago

I’ll refrain from any comments about Mr. Allard since he’s apparently reviewed so well in California Law and I can’t refer to him as an “ambulance chaser”.

Stop trolling, Splash. First off, he says “months”. Not six. I would refrain from spreading false information.

Second of all, please don’t act like you know remotely anything about the law. Litigation and even gearing up for a case or any sort of defense can take months. Maybe years. I’ve known cases of different natures that have been ongoing for 10 years, and will have to be preparing months before a hearing or meeting with other attorneys.

4 years 2 months ago

Brian, why don’t you stop sniffing the crotches of the liars, thieves and degenerates that are running our sport? I’ve never met Mr. Allard, but hes done more to get rid of corruption in USA Swimming than any member or coach. Nobody has the balls to fight them.

Think about it, Brian…if Allard is an “Ambulance Chaser” and looking for the quick buck (as you would suggest), he would be like most lawyers and encourage all of his clients to settle and move on to the next lawsuit. It is very obvious if you really wake up and look at the history here, that this man has spent a lot of his own time and money to singlehandedly fight a very powerful and corrupt organization that uses scortched earth legal tactics. And to my knowledge he’s not a swimmer nor does he have a family member involved in the sport.

4 years 2 months ago

Hm. Interesting turn of phrase. From your foul use of language, it would appear that something I’ve said upsets you! I would appreciate it if you’d talk like a grown man (or woman).

It’s about ego, and notoriety. Why else try and make such a big fuss about it now, right before the Games? Because it gets his name out there, and makes him more popular (or infamous) in the long run.

No lawyer does it “out of his own pocket and time” and of his own pro-bono heart.

4 years 2 months ago


I couldn’t agree with you more. There’s clearly too many cooks in the kitchen. I keep reading contradictory facts on time lines among all parties involved.

But mainly, I agree with your comments on both Attorney Bob Allard and the Washington Post’s timing on this article coming out a week before the Olympic Games. I’m aware that Amy Shipley was planning on getting this article out precisely at this time, before the Olympics, way back in December of 2011. USA Swimming knew about this. The Washington Post knew about this. Nothing good is going to come of this. There will be no ‘lessons’ learned. I am very skeptical that Kelley is even in control of her own statements. There is going to be a lot of pain involved in this case. The victims will now be their own children who have to live thru this from the stories they hear from friends, teammates, parents, media, etc…

The fact is, Kelley Davies settled with Rick Curl way back in 1989. She also told Richard Quick, the Olympic coach at the time (how much higher in rank could it get!), many other prominent coaches and fellow swimmers during that time. She was not quiet about this at all. It appears that Kelley was in breach of the contract by talking – right?

And I don’t think this is going to be a slam dunk for Bob Allard. He will have to get Curl thru USA Swimming by implicating USA Swimming. How much time and money is he willing to spend?

4 years 2 months ago

Well, it’s hard to say. If he’s going to try and implicate USA Swimming in the Curl hearing, it will be next to impossible to do so. Any attorney worth their salt would destroy him simply based on the fact that it was 1) 30 years ago and anyone who was heading USA Swimming then is no longer in charge, 2) Many new policies have been implemented in USA Swimming to prevent the very things that were brought up way back in the past (i.e rooming, parent supervisors, etc), and 3) Most importantly, the non-disclosure agreement, which meant that legally, there was no way that what the client says holds any sort of validity because they signed it away in the NDA.

4 years 2 months ago


I get that you feel there is a long (maybe impossible) road to travel for anything to come of this suit but jeez, could you not come off as so happy about it.

4 years 2 months ago


You must be imposing some own Freudian slip there. Happy? Not at all, and there’s nothing in any of my statements to appear as such, thank you very much.

There’s a large difference between whatever you call “happiness” and debate and trying to discern all the facts and subtleties of what happened. Especially in figuring out any possible repercussions in the sport.

4 years 2 months ago

Time for hard time.


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 »