By Jennifer Grabowski
And USA Swimming thought Michael Phelps’s use of marijuana was a big issue.
That incident paled in comparison to what has happened to the image of the national governing body of competitive swimming during the first half of this year.
Most damning was the exposure of Andrew King, a veteran coach, who was sentenced to 40 years in January after he pleaded no contest to charges of molesting a 14-year-old female swimmer and two other women he coached. As investigators dug into his coaching career they found more than 15 other female swimmers that he had abused, including a 14-year-old girl, who claimed she had an abortion after King impregnated her.
This, apparently, was the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
In the last decade, USA Swimming has reportedly banned 36 of its coaches for sexual transgressions.
There has been talk about reform and stronger regulations since the stories have broken. Two men, Ken Stopkotte and Michael Saltzstein, have spoken up, both of which are highly regarded in the swimming community.
Saltzstein, a judge in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, proposed a detailed 6-step plan to protect the athletes from sexual misconduct. In the plan, he proposed that any coach, without a license or training, cannot perform massages on an athlete and coaches with special training cannot perform those acts in a one-on-one situation. Also, any member of USA Swimming that tries to hide, hinder or slow an investigation down will encounter probationary measures and possible termination. Saltzstein said that since he publicly stated his opinion of USA Swimming’s lackadaisical approach on preventing sexual misconduct he has been denied work. He was prevented from being re-nominated to FINA, swimming’s international governing body.
Stopkotte, a coach of Olympic athletes and 2009 Indiana High School Boys Swimming and Diving State Coach of the Year, alleged that he has suffered retaliation from USA Swimming after he appeared on ABC’s “20/20” episode about sexual transgressions in USA Swimming. In particular, he claimed he was denied coaching privileges of a USA Swimming-sanctioned Indiana all-star team. Indiana Swimming has maintained that he was banned because of his role in falsifying the times of his swimmers.
Both men claimed that they went to USA Swimming with their concerns before going public with their complaint to the United States Olympic Committee. In their complaint, which was filed by Edward G. Williams of Stewart Occhipinti, LLP in New York City, the men allege that they have been “denied eligibility to participate only after speaking out about the acceptance of USA Swimming of the culture of sexual misconduct that exists within USA Swimming.”
In essence, noted Williams, USA Swimming is more interested in “shooting the messenger.”
In the weeks since the complaint was filed, Williams has conducted a dialogue with outside counsel for USA Swimming and Indiana Swimming over whether Shopkotte has been denied due process in being banned from working the camp. In those communications, Williams cited the following AAA cases — Stephon Flenoy v. Track and Field; Natalie Salk v. US Sailing; and the recent Table Tennis case (all available on the USOC Web site) – for the supposition that an NGB and/or its affiliate “may not deny an individual (and that includes coaches) eligibility to participate without first giving notice and an opportunity for a hearing.”
Scrutiny of Background Checks
Ironic to King’s long history of abuse and misconduct with his female athletes, USA Swimming granted him a passing background check in 2008. His passing check read “Congratulations, your background screening has been thoroughly reviewed and meets the qualification standards set by USA Swimming.”
USA Swimming’s standards for background screening only include a criminal check. They never look into past coaching history. They failed to call Oak Harbor or East Bay, his previous coaching locations, and ask for a recommendation.
Chuck Wielgus, executive director of USA Swimming, said “We want to have the gold standard, and I think we do an awesome job. I don’t think we’re perfect.”
Wieglus stands by the argument that it is the local swim clubs responsibly to do a comprehensive background check and not the national organizations.
“It’s not nearly as serious in USA Swimming as it might be in the rest of society,” Chuck Wielgus, executive director of USA Swimming, has said throughout the controversy. “I don’t want to be the one to sit here and say 36 is too many; one is too many, but this is not just a problem that’s isolated to one sport.”
