In the Wake

You know a story is big when it passes the "mom test". My mother is not an avid follower of sports news. When she hears about something, particularly in swimming, I know the story has gone well beyond the usual people. Of course, the 20/20 story on USA Swimming is passes the mom test with flying colors- my mom sent me a concerned e-mail within hours of it airing.

She was concerned for me- what would the repercussions be for swim coaches at large? And while I won't say I'm not worried, I have confidence that swimming will be able to bounce back from the bad publicity. However, as I read the reactions to the story, a number of questions have bubbled up. Here's my best take at answering them:

Question #1: Why has it taken so long for some of these accusations to come forward? Why are people reporting this to USA Swimming and not the police?

One of my fellow assistant coaches was the first to ask me these questions. Why was USA Swimming the highest authority that some of these people reported to? The answer to both of these questions that I've lumped together is a complicated one.

First of all, I think we need to recognize what can sometimes be the hardest thing to understand about sex crimes: how undereported they are. The shame of molestation can often be paralyzing for victims. From the outside, we view the events as horiffic and wonder "how could you not report that?". Paradoxically, the fact that sexual abuse is considered judged to be the most amoral act in our society makes accusations ever harder to make- victims fear reprisal from their tormenter and their community. This barrier to reporting is even more pronounced when we are talking about minors, who may be able to easier rationalize the molestation. Again, this is why Tony Austin's suggestion that USA Swimming adopt a model in which coaches are NEVER alone with a swimmer is so critical- because most of these swimmers are alone when they are abused. Having at least two adults present will either act as a deterrent or allow someone other than the victim be the person who reports, greatly increasing the chance that the abuse will be reported.

As for USA Swimming being the highest authority to which it is reported, I think this goes hand in hand with the intimidation that victims feel. In many cases, USA Swimming may be the easiest venue to report to; whereas reporting to the police would draw much greater attention and a protracted legal process. Victims may also assume that reporting abuse to USA Swimming will trigger USA Swimming to start the legal process. I'm not a legal scholar so anyone who knows more is welcome to comment below.

Question #2: What was Chuck Wielgus thinking?

The reviews of the way Wielgus came off in this interview have been almost universally bad. Multiple commenters on Swimming World Magazine's article on the story have called for him to resign. I thought the sports blog Deadspin put it best when it described his performance as such:

"it's the painful interview with Chuck Wielgus, USA Swimming's waxy-faced executive director, that comes off as most damaging. Wielgus' statements range from blithe to toe-curlingly insensitive"

Wielgus has rebounded in the days following the report, taking a much different tact, particularly in an e-mail he sent to USA Swimming coaches:

"I also am extremely sorry if our organization has not done enough to provide the highest level of child protection safeguards and guidelines"

This is probably what he should have said in the 20/20 interview, where the perhaps most played sound bite is of him being incredulous that he was asked to apologize for the crimes of Andy King et al.

Again, I'm going to try and explain, not excuse, Wielgus' odd behavior during the 20/20 interview. First, I think it seems that he was somewhat blindsided by the questions surrounding molestation by coaches. I think he never imagined that the reporter would hold him accountable in any way for this. As the public face of USA Swimming, he has received considerably less media scrutiny in his career, than say, Roger Goodell has as commissioner of the NFL. Goodell has had to be media savvy at the highest level his entire career- or he wouldn't have it. To borrow another sports analogy, Wielgus has been going up against Double A pitching his entire career and just had his first major league at bat with the nation watching. So if we establish that he was unprepared, it begs the final:

Question #3: Why the arrogance?

What hurt Wielgus more than his lack of preparation was the arrogance with which he responded to Brian Ross. In the heat of the moment, he believed that explanations like "36 is a lot less than 100" would suffice. He responded to many questions with a smirk that seemed that suggest incredulity that anyone could question his judgment.

Quite frankly, as a swimming community, we shouldn't be surprised. For a sport in which objective numbers (times) seem so overwhelmingly important, much of the decision making is wholly subjective. Last summer, when furor over body suits marred everything, consider the arguments we received from above. I heard all sorts of subjective arguments for why the suits should be banned: because they helped some more than others, because they provided flotation, because they trapped air. These arguments were floated at the highest level, by national team coaches and athletes alike (just ask Craig Lord). They were done so well in advance of any objective, scientific evidence of any kind. At the final decision making time, a scientist, Jan Anders Manson, was pulled in to legitimate the witch hunt. However, even he provided no objective data for why certain suit makes were banned over others- even going so far as to make the wholly subjective argument for the ban of certain models that they "may create an air-trapping effect". When I spoke out against the lack of objective data, I was told in no uncertain terms by a USA Swimming official to shut my mouth or face career consequences.

When decisions are made entirely on a subjective basis, the arguments for why things are done all boil down to one thing: that its that way "Because I said so". Wielgus is at the head of USA Swimming, and perhaps in this interview he expected the reporter to just agree with him "because I said so" like so many do in the swimming world. Unfortunately for him, he wasn't in a USA Swimming board meeting, and if we ever hope to expand our little piece of pie, we're going to need to start thinking bigger.