As USA Swimming is dealing with the fallout from the recycling story of decades-old sexual abuse coverups, the public list of banned individuals – one of the positive outcomes of the 20/20 exposée in 2010, has been confusing, to say the least, over the last month.
3 members were added to the banned list in January of 2018 – all were coaches, and all had committed sexually-related crimes that are being investigated or adjudicated by legal authorities. One, Nathan Weddle, was arrested in December on allegations that he had sex with a 15-year old swimmer that he coached. The other two, James Cutrone and Christian Valcarce, were arrested on charges of child pornography.
And yet, none of the 3 were listed as having been banned for sexual charges.
All 3 were banned under two types of code of conduct violations: those related to drugs, and a vague, if not redundant, “Violation of the SafeSport Code.” None of the reasons listed on the public ban listed their sexual crimes, thus diminishing the list’s value to other non-USA Swimming organizations that might attempt to hire the 3 individuals.
We asked USA Swimming about the discrepancy between the criminal charges and the listed reasons for ban a week ago and received a brief response from USA Swimming’s new senior communications director Isabelle McLemore saying that the “SafeSport team was looking into it.” On that same day, the USA Swimming SafeSport Director Susan Woessner resigned, and the list still does not reflect any of the 3 coaches’ sexual-related criminal charges.
That doesn’t mean the list didn’t change. To the contrary – one of the 3 banned coaches, Nathan Weddle, was removed from the list, sometime after February 22nd and before February 27th. On February 27th, we reached out to McLemore again to ask why he was removed, and received no response.
On Thursday morning, however, Weddle’s name re-appeared on the public list, but this time with only 1 reason for his ban (down from the previous listed 3): a “Violation of the SafeSport Code.” There is now no mention of drug or sexually-based offenses, or any specific offenses.
USA Swimming didn’t acknowledge the latest changes by adjusting the “UPDATED” date tracked at the top of the site, which still lists February 26th in spite of Weddle being added back after that date.
Also on Thursday morning, SwimSwam followed-up, again to silence, to ask about the latest development. On the latest communication, we included other members of the USA Swimming staff, including the SafeSport email address and CEO Tim Hinchey, but still have not received a response as of posting.
We will update our readers if USA Swimming responds to explain the misalignment of information.
What about Pussieldi ?
I have a question. So, I looked at the list of the individuals who were banned, but I did not see my former head coach who recently was permanently suspended. Does anybody know why this might be??
Carson K – we could investigate more if you tell us the name. At least 1 coach has been removed from the list after winning arbitration to un-ban him; if your coach was banned by the US Center for Safe Sport (as compared to USA Swimming’s), he also might not be on this list. It’s also plausible that your coach was recently banned and his appeal period hasn’t expired.
I believe it was the OC Register article that discussed the massive amount of capital US Swimming has in it’s off shore insurance special purpose vehicle. Bottom line, they were advised to protect their little honey hole before protecting their members. Obviously their highly paid legal counsel advised them not to be specific with the reasons people are put on the list. This is the norm in corporate America. However when children’s safety is involved the institution should be willing to take the risk of a lawsuit. There are plenty of ways to accurately describe the facts surrounding the reason for inclusion — such as specifically saying: PENDING INVESTIGATION of sexual misconduct. 100% factually accurate. If this organization wasn’t sitting… Read more »
Braden: thanks for bird-dogging this. The addition and removal is disconcerting when not followed by an explanation. One comment on “permanent banning”: While I understand and support the steps to eliminate and prosecute coaches, volunteers that sexually abuse swimmers, a ban is a ban…doesn’t matter for what reasons, the person should not be coaching, volunteering, near swimmers, nor in or near a swimming facility. The organization does not want them…period. It is also quite possible (again, a ‘what if’) that Safesport is nervous as an entity and reacting too quickly. Just speculation on my part. We do know any time there is a change in law, policy, and education, or a public issue like this gains momentum, reporting will spike… Read more »
So do they just have a big wheel they spin to decide who’s up there day to day?
I appreciate Swim Swam reporting these ongoing issues. If Swim Swam knows how the swimming community can apply more pressure to USA Swimming for change please provide input. I gave USA Swimming the following input:
I believe Safe Sport must be an independent organization without any connection to USA Swimming. I would be happy if part of my annual dues to USA Swimming went directly to an independent Safe Sport group which aggressively protected children – not USA Swimming executives, clubs, or coaches.
Breaking of safe sport , if the funds going to it were overseen by a 3rd party, and if safe sport was given carte blanche to perform investigations (limited to safe sport related mission) makes a ton of sense.
I would venture to guess that it has something to do with the fact that they have not been convicted yet. Dirtbags or not, there has to be due-process. Violation of the safe sport code is probably serving as a catch all to have them banned immediately.
Brian M – two flaws with that:
1) That’s not how SafeSport was designed to work. They can’t just “ban them” without evidence, while the legal system runs its course. Due process, for Safe Sport’s purposes, involves a hearing process – that is supposed to be followed, and have evidence presented, like a criminal proceeding would. Even if they were awaiting due process – there’s a separate “temporary banned” list that would make more sense than putting them on the “permanent banned” list.
2) That doesn’t explain the fact that all 3 were banned for drug issues. We haven’t been able to find criminal drug charges on any of them. Nor does it explain removing one from the list… Read more »
Sounds to me like a lot of people should be fired. Probably investigated too for attempting to cover things up.
And we need to get these pedophiles OUT of children’s sports!