U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–907 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025

S. HRG. 115–886 

PROTECTING U.S. AMATEUR ATHLETES: 

EXAMINING ABUSE PREVENTION EFFORTS 

ACROSS THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

PRODUCT SAFETY, INSURANCE, 

AND DATA SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

OCTOBER 3, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

JON TESTER, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, 

INSURANCE, AND DATA SECURITY 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas, Chairman 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, 

Ranking 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 3, 2018 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Moran .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 30 

Statement of Senator Capito .................................................................................. 33 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 37 

WITNESSES

Phil Andrews, Chief Executive Officer and General Secretary, USA 

Weightlifting ......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Anne Cammett, President, U.S. Figure Skating ................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Timothy Hinchey III, President and Chief Executive Officer, USA Swimming . 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Darrin Steele, Chief Executive Officer, USA Bobsled and Skeleton ................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

APPENDIX

Stephen McNally, Executive Director, USA Taekwondo, prepared statement ... 49 

Report dated September 19, 2018 entitled ‘‘Recommendations to Congress: 

Reforming the U.S. Olympic Committee to Ensure Health and Livelihood 

of Athletes’’ by Olympians Rising ....................................................................... 50 

Response to written questions submitted to Phil Andrews by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 58 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 61 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 61 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 70 

Response to written questions submitted to Anne Cammett by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 75 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 76 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 77 

Hon. Tammy Duckworth .................................................................................. 85 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 85 

Response to written questions submitted to Timothy Hinchey III by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 89 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 90 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 91 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 104 

Response to written questions submitted to Darrin Steele by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 108 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 109 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 109 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 121 

Response to written questions submitted to Stephen McNally by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 123 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 124 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 125 

(1) 

PROTECTING U.S. AMATEUR ATHLETES: 

EXAMINING ABUSE PREVENTION EFFORTS 

ACROSS THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, 

INSURANCE, AND DATA SECURITY,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Jerry Moran, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Moran [presiding], Fischer, Capito, Young, 

Blumenthal, Nelson, Duckworth, Hassan, and Cortez Masto. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Our Subcommittee will come to order. 

Thank you to my colleagues for joining us. I know we have others 

who will later. 

I have two apologies to express at the moment. One is that we 

are a few minutes late in starting, and I apologize for that. 

The second is that my opening statement is longer than usual, 

but I think it is useful for us to put a bit of story behind how we 

got to the point we are today. 

So I will begin with my opening statement. We will recognize the 

Ranking Member, and then we will turn to our witnesses. 

This Subcommittee, which exercises jurisdiction over the U.S. 

Olympic Committee and amateur sports at large, is fully committed 

to ensuring the health and safety of all American athletes, and 

today marks our fourth hearing in our ongoing investigation. 

In January, this Subcommittee launched an investigation to examine cultural and systemic issues regarding abuse in the Olympics brought on by horrific revelations that former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar sexually abused and assaulted 

hundreds of athletes over a span of two decades, well after numerous survivors alerted authorities about his actions. We are proud 

of the courage and bravery demonstrated by the many current and 

former athletes we have listened to and spoken with over the past 

10 months as they have shared their stories with this Committee. 

The Subcommittee’s investigation has expanded to include all national governing bodies which govern each of the Olympic sports 

2 

and the role of the U.S. Olympic Committee in providing guidance 

and oversight to better protect athletes. 

Our conversations with leaders of these organizations have focused on reforms that were part of the recently enacted Protecting 

Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization 

Act and how each of their organizations have implemented these 

important protections. I am grateful for the leadership demonstrated by Commerce Committee Chairman Thune and Senator 

Feinstein during our work to pass this bipartisan law. Through 

this, we have provided tools to help protect amateur athletes, and 

this Committee will continue our bipartisan effort to bolster this 

work. 

I speak for the entire Subcommittee when I say that the brave 

actions and testimonies of our young athletes have inspired and 

motivated us. This Committee is committed to making positive 

change for these and all athletes, and the survivors we have been 

working with over the past several months are truly drivers of this 

much needed cultural change. 

I apologize. My third apology of the afternoon. I apologize I was 

unable to attend the event earlier today with survivors from a 

number of sports sharing their stories and ideas for improvements. 

There are a number of those survivors with us at this hearing 

today, and I join Senator Blumenthal in asking that you please 

stand and be recognized. 

[Applause.] 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. We are honored and 

pleased by your presence. 

Since initiating our bipartisan investigation—and I appreciate 

the working relationship that Senator Blumenthal and I have—this 

Subcommittee has held three hearings in which members of the 

Committee and the American public heard from distinct witness 

panels on their experiences related to procedural missteps and collective inaction experienced within these misled Olympic organizations. 

Additionally, we have heard from current executive leadership 

within the Olympic movement on steps they are taking to address 

concerns that were identified by the Subcommittee and highlighted 

by numerous survivors. 

In the first hearing, we heard testimony from four survivors of 

abuse across different Olympic sports who shared personal experiences about the systemic practices that have safeguarded perpetrators—not victims, perpetrators—inhibited victims from coming forward and prevented victims’ reports from coming to light. 

In the second hearing, we brought in leaders from USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University to provide testimony and 

answer questions as to how the rampant abuse by Dr. Nassar was 

able to perpetuate for as long as it did. Scott Blackmun, the former 

President of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and Martha Karolyi, the 

former National Team Coordinator for USA Gymnastics, were invited to attend but declined for medical reasons. 

Critical topics were covered in that hearing, including USA Gymnastics’ mishandling of critical medical records, failed communications to and within Michigan State University related to sexual 

abuse reports against their employee, and most important, the 

3 

complete lack of cooperation demonstrated by Mr. Penny in his refusal to answer questions. 

In the third hearing, we heard from current leaders of the same 

troubled organizations regarding which aspects of their systems 

and culture had changed and how they planned to implement serious reforms moving forward. 

Specifically, we were joined by Mr. John Engler, Interim President of Michigan State University; Ms. Susanne Lyons, Acting 

CEO of the U.S. Olympic Committee; Ms. Kerry Perry, recently the 

former President and CEO of USA Gymnastics; and Mr. Han Xiao, 

Chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Athlete Advisory Council. I appreciated their updates in the hearing and continue to monitor the work that their organizations are doing to empower amateur athletes and prevent abuse. 

It is my belief that hearing from a variety of national governing 

bodies of different sizes, resources, and challenges is necessary to 

make policy recommendations as we move forward. 

As such, joining us today is Mr. Phil Andrews, the CEO of USA 

Weightlifting; Ms. Anne Cammett, President of USA Figure Skating; Mr. Tim Hinchey III, President and CEO of USA Swimming; 

and Mr. Darrin Steele, CEO of USA Bobsled & Skeleton. 

We have also received written testimony and expect responses to 

questions from Mr. Steve McNally, the Executive Director of USA 

Taekwondo. 

I will conclude my opening remarks by reiterating the bipartisan 

approach that this Subcommittee has taken in its comprehensive 

investigation. We are in consultation with law enforcement, with 

survivors and advocates. We have worked closely together to identify meaningful reforms in the best interests of athletes and their 

families. 

With that, I will turn the Ranking Member, Senator Blumenthal, 

for his opening statement. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I too have an apology which is, I 

think, at 3:15 we are going to have a vote. So we will have to interrupt at that point. 

Senator MORAN. True. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But I am glad that we are beginning, and 

I want to thank everyone for being here, our witnesses and most 

especially the courageous and strong survivors who are with us in 

the hearing room. I am grateful to Senator Moran for his leadership and our partnership in these hearings and this effort to really 

achieve systemic change, not just awareness and education but real 

change. And I want to join in thanking Chairman Thune and 

Ranking Member Nelson for their support in this effort. 

The survivors are really the heroes here. They are the profiles 

in courage that inspire us to move forward. In the last couple of 

weeks, we have seen many come forward and demonstrate the 

bravery that it has taken for men and women to brave the nightmare of public shaming and character assassination and threats, 

potential retaliation, all of the deterrents that cause only a fraction 

4 

of the survivors to report sexual abuse. So my thanks to them 

again, and we will be thanking you repeatedly I am sure. 

But let us remember that Larry Nassar’s image in an orange 

jumpsuit followed years, literally years, when his crimes were disregarded or ignored. Predators succeed with their crimes because 

they are skilled at grooming, and they are masters of deception. 

Monsters are often hiding in plain sight, and they are often aided 

and abetted by people who turn the other way, who fail to report 

or take action in the face of this criminal action. 

I have lengthy remarks, which I am going to put in the record, 

but I want to say that today we are going to hear from leadership 

at NGBs, some large and others small, winter, summer, outdoor 

and indoor, team and individual, emphasizing that the predatory 

crimes here go well beyond just gymnastics. That is point number 

one. 

Present here today are heads of the national team for swimming, 

figure skating, weightlifting, bobsled and skeleton. Some of the 

NGBs have to answer for their own troubling malfeasance in resolving sexual misconduct cases. Others are currently struggling to 

find the finances to make the systemic changes needed. 

The head of USA Taekwondo and the Multi-Sport Organization 

Council, MSOC, have also agreed to respond to written questions. 

I look forward to asking Steve McNally at USA Taekwondo what 

courage was needed to ban Gene Lopez despite the Center for 

SafeSport lifting its permanent ban on him because his accusers, 

understandably overwhelmed emotionally by depositions needing to 

be taken at the same time, asked that arbitration proceedings be 

postponed. 

With respect to MSOC, I look forward to examining the partnership between the USOC and a number of community-based organizations like the YMCA, the Police Athletic League, the Boys and 

Girls Club, the pipeline for many young athletes into Olympic 

sports. 

The feedback we receive today from the witnesses who are here 

will enable us to craft bipartisan legislation to amend the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to better safeguard athletes. 

Much of the work needs to be done to address the gaping failures 

at the USOC, the Center for SafeSport and the NGBs to protect 

athletes. If these hearings and the events of last week when we 

saw some of those survivors come forward taught us anything, it 

is the desperate need for a complete cultural shift, a real teaching 

moment for America on how we view sexual abuse in this country 

and more than just a cultural shift, more than just a focus of rhetoric, specific action. 

And a couple ideas that I think have to be on the table: an athlete advocate within the USOC, an inspector general in that same 

organization, possible revision, even revocation of tax exemptions 

and antitrust exemptions in the event the USOC fails to be responsive, athlete representatives on NGB boards and on the USOC 

boards, and improved transparency on NGB banned list reporting 

so that there are more thorough background checks to stop predators from relocating and harming new athletes, and finally, making 

sure that the USOC itself is held to a higher standard of accountability. 

5 

Those ideas are suggestions for a beginning not an end, and I 

hope that we will, in fact, move forward against misconduct to 

honor the survivors and all who have been affected, their families 

as well, by this scourge in our Olympic sports community and beyond. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much for 

your opening statement. 

And I would like to recognize the Senator from Florida, the 

Ranking Member of the Full Committee. Senator Nelson, thank 

you for your leadership in conjunction with Chairman Thune. The 

Full Committee has given us a great opportunity to pursue these 

issues, and we are grateful for that. And you have been an active 

participant in this Subcommittee, and we appreciate your presence. 

Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth noting 

this is the fourth hearing on this subject between the Subcommittee and the Full Committee. And it bears repeating what 

has been said. We failed the athletes. The system failed them. Responsible adults turned a blind eye and allowed predators to commit unspeakable crimes. And it was not just gymnastics, as Senator Blumenthal has just said. Everything from swimming to 

taekwondo; the whole range suffered terrible abuse at the hands of 

trusted coaches. 

Last January, Congress passed the Protecting Young Victims 

from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act, and it will 

go a long way toward preventing similar abuse from happening in 

the future. Chairman Thune of the full committee and I authored 

the provisions in the new law that formally authorizes the creation 

of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. And that center in the law is 

tasked with investigating allegations of abuse and developing policies and safeguards that youth sports organizations must adopt to 

protect young athletes. For instance, sports organizations must enforce policies that minimize one-on-one interactions between adults 

and children. 

And the new law also makes clear the core mission of the U.S. 

Olympic Committee is to prioritize the safety and welfare of the 

youth athletes in Olympic sports. And the idea of this law is to try 

to make a positive difference in the lives of young athletes all 

across this country. 

I want to thank the Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman 

Thune, as well as Senator Feinstein, as well as the leadership of 

this subcommittee for working, all of us together, on this important 

law. 

But there is more that can be done. I am looking forward to the 

witnesses so that we can keep on top of this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my remarks brief so that we can get to 

our witnesses. 

6 

Today is the fourth hearing that we have conducted on this matter, and I will 

repeat what I said at previous hearings: We failed the athletes who were abused. 

The system failed them. Responsible adults turned a blind eye and allowed predators to commit unspeakable crimes. And it wasn’t just gymnastics. As we will discuss today, athletes in sports as diverse as swimming and ty-kwon-do also suffered 

terrible abuse at the hands of trusted coaches. 

Last January, Congress passed the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse 

and Safe Sport Authorization Act, which will go a long way towards preventing 

similar abuse from happening again. Chairman Thune and I authored the provisions in the new law that formally authorizes the creation of the U.S. Center for 

Safe Sport. The center is tasked with investigating allegations of abuse and developing policies and safeguards that youth sports organizations must adopt to protect 

youth athletes. For instance, sports organizations must enforce policies that minimize one-on-one interactions between adults and children. 

The new law also makes clear that a core mission of the United States Olympics 

Committee is to prioritize the safety and welfare of youth athletes in Olympic 

sports. Together, these provisions will make a huge, positive difference in the lives 

of young athletes across this Nation. I want to thank Chairman Thune, as well as 

Senator Feinstein, for working with me on this important law. 

Having said that, we know more can be done. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses today and working with all of the members of this committee on continuing efforts to protect youth athletes from unnecessary harm. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

We will now hear from those witnesses. My expectation is that 

we will hear from all four witnesses. We will break, be on the floor 

in time to cast a 3:15 vote, and then return immediately to pursue 

questions and discussion. 

I have already introduced the members of the panelists. We will 

begin with Mr. Andrews and take testimony across the table. Mr. 

Andrews, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF PHIL ANDREWS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

AND GENERAL SECRETARY, USA WEIGHTLIFTING 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 

Blumenthal, and members of the Subcommittee. Good afternoon. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and thank you for 

your action to assist the Olympic and Paralympic movement during 

this time, particularly in the passage of the Protection of Young 

Athletes Act. 

I would like to open with an unreserved apology to anyone who 

suffered at the hands of abuse within the course of their sport participation. I agree with the Senators who have spoken today when 

they say the system failed them. We must do more to protect those 

athletes in the future. Sport is about enjoyment. I am so sorry especially to those here in the room but to those who have faced 

abuse in sport everywhere for what they have faced. 

My full written testimony is available on the Subcommittee’s 

website, but I will address some key issues here. 

In common with some of my Olympic and Paralympic colleagues, 

our NGB has taken significant steps in the athlete protection area 

in recent times. Our NGB also features participation from many 

athletes who had previous participation in another sport. To that 

end, we have made available counseling and mental health tools to 

anyone who has faced abuse in any sport that is now participating 

in weightlifting, whether that be physical, emotional, or sexual 

abuse. That action came out directly from the feedback of a survivor of abuse in sport. By the end of 2018, we are working curVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
7 

rently with individuals to make pro bono facilities available to all 

members who are athletes within USA Weightlifting. 

The rest of my testimony—I will briefly address one of the issues 

raised by members of this committee with me previously. Creating 

an athlete-focused culture should be at the heart of every NGB. We 

are not alone in our desire to create an athlete-focused culture. I 

would like to recognize USA Swimming whose national team and 

the members of their athletic community spoke to all NGBs about 

their positive culture just two days ago. 

Culture is complex, but its heart is about listening and creating 

trust. I was pleased to hear, in common with USA Swimming, we 

make nothing mandatory for our athletes. And in our case, our athletes have the final say on things like selection procedures, making 

the athletes truly at the heart of what we do. 

Since 2016, we have tried to make incremental changes and 

build opportunities for listening and learning from our athletes, 

both elite and non-elite, to implement further changes, to which I 

can go into further detail if wished. 

Some practical measures that we have also introduced. We have 

an independent ethics and judicial committee, including Federal 

prosecutors, former inspector generals, and former State-level 

judges. 

We have implemented sport-specific measures, including the removal of the need to weigh in the nude. Weigh-in in our sport can 

now be done within a singlet, therefore fully clothed. That has also 

been suggested to our international federation who will be discussing that in less than one month. 

We have made our reporting easier: by having up our telephone 

tree when you call USA Weightlifting, by having links immediately 

on the front page of our website, and making, again at the suggestion of former survivors, immediate information available very 

clearly and very prominently at each and every one of our events. 

We are open to further improvement and we are open to further 

ideas. 

The U.S. Center for SafeSport is a key measure that was taken 

by the Olympic movement and the Paralympic movement and together with the acts aforementioned to create a new and independent body to investigate the area of sexual abuse. While the 

center is in the need for more resources, to that end, the USA 

Weightlifting quadrupled our funding in common with our NGBs as 

a whole doubling our funding for the center to meet the needs of 

investigations across the country. 

We have developed a great and independent relationship with 

the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency which benefits from significant Federal funding to support its independent work. I call upon Members 

of Congress to support the center likewise and further the independent nature of the center by giving it the support it truly needs 

to do the job that we all would like it to do. 

Moving on to our leadership with a new Olympic movement, the 

U.S. Olympic Committee, I would like to say that winning is not 

a bad thing. America’s public, when we go to the games, expects 

us to win. We all cheer when we see the heroes of the Olympic 

movement who are there and speak to the need to participate in 

sport and speak to athletes and inspire other athletes to participate 

8 

in sport. That might be just at the local level, but it is about doing 

it the right way. And I think that that is where we are moving toward now, winning in the right way, winning in an athlete-focused 

manner. 

I commend the appointment of Susanne Lyons to be the President of the U.S. Olympic Committee. Susanne has shown a commitment to our athletes, a willingness to listen to both national 

governing bodies, athletes most importantly, and other stakeholders in the Olympic movement. 

I applaud the USOC for raising expectations of the U.S. national 

governing bodies. Doing so will allow us and, in turn, encourage us 

to have raised the expectations of those that we endorse as clubs. 

I also commend the USOC for bringing into place an athlete 

services division and diverting money toward that need within the 

Olympic movement. 

Looking for ideas on how Congress might best support us and 

look for areas of improvement, I have already mentioned funding 

of the center. I have already mentioned the need for support of that 

center in both non-financial and financial senses, in common with 

the action the Federal Government has around USADA. Continued 

interest and attention to this matter I think would best allow the 

Olympic movement to further improve. 

Oversight of youth sport—it is important to recognize that individuals participate in youth sport inside and outside of the Olympic 

and Paralympic movement, and it is equally important that they 

are supported and protected outside of the Paralympic movement, 

as well as within that movement. 

And finally, in cooperation with law enforcement to ensure that 

no matter where an issue comes up, be that domestic or abroad, 

that issue can be dealt with in the right and proper manner by law 

enforcement. 

Thank you for your time, and I am happy to take any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHIL ANDREWS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND GENERAL

SECRETARY, USA WEIGHTLIFTING

Good afternoon Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Senators of 

the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence before this Subcommittee, and for 

the action and interest you are taking in the Olympic & Paralympic movement. 

By way of introduction, USA Weightlifting is the National Governing Body (NGB), 

responsible for the Olympic Sport of Weightlifting. We have approximately 27,000 

members and an annual budget in the region of $6m, as of today 2.9 percent of that 

funding is derived from U.S. Olympic Committee funds while the remainder is derived from USA Weightlifting generated funding. Of our athlete membership, our 

gender split is 53 percent/47 percent towards the male population. 

I would like to open with an apology. To those athletes within our sport—including those who came to Weightlifting from somewhere else—that suffered at the 

hands of sexual, emotional or physical abuse—I am sorry. We, as the U.S. Olympic 

and Paralympic movement have failed you. This should not have happened, and 

when it did, the response should have been immediate and impactful. If this did not 

happen, I am sorry. We, as the Olympic and Paralympic movement, can and will 

do better. 

At its very core, before a medal is won or the Olympic flame is lit, sport is about 

right to enjoyment. No athlete should have that right taken away. 

Our NGB (National Governing Body), along with others in the Olympic movement, has taken significant steps to deter abuse, and will continue to look for more 

9 

ways to improve. While we can never guarantee abuse will not happen in Olympic 

& Paralympic Sport, we can do more to protect our athletes, and that is exceptionally important. 

To that end, our NGB has made confidential mental health and recovery tools 

available to our athletes who suffered abuse, including those who suffered abuse in 

another sport. By the end of 2018, that counselling and mental health network, 

dealing not only with abuse and trauma but with other areas of mental health relevant to our athlete population, will be made available to our entire athlete population within the sport of Weightlifting. 

In the rest of my testimony, I have tried to cover several subjects raised over the 

last year with us by either members of the Committee, or their staff. 

Pro-active measures taken by USA Weightlifting 

USA Weightlifting has tried to take pro-active measures to remain at the forefront of integrity issues, covering Abuse, Ethics and Doping issues in sport. 

As part of a governance review of the organization in 2017, USA Weightlifting implemented the first and only independent Ethics and Judicial Committees among 

the Olympic & Paralympic NGBs. This group of volunteer individuals is selected 

from outside of the sport with relevant expertise in the space including a former 

Inspector General, Federal Prosecutors, Title IX Investigators and those serving in 

Fortune 500 Chief of Ethics positions. Our athlete population is represented on 

these committees by Elite Athletes both within and outside of our sport. 

Having this independent model allows us to deal appropriately with cases that fall 

under our Code of Ethics, which is reviewed annually by the same group, as well 

as outside counsel, our Athlete Advisory Council and Board of Directors. This model 

also gives our organization the ability to adjudicate fairly, cases the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport chose not to take, including claims in the areas of Emotional and Physical 

Abuse. 

USA Weightlifting, in partnership with the U.S. Center for SafeSport has made 

changes to how abuse is able to be reported. We now have buttons right on the front 

of our website to report abuse, ethical issues as well as doping offences. These methods to report are also repeated on social media and during our national events 

across the country. A full list of measures can be found via our website, under the 

SafeSport tab. 

Our organization has taken proactive measures to ensure that any individual with 

direct athlete contact must pass a comprehensive criminal background check and 

complete education provided by the U.S. Center for SafeSport before contact with 

an athlete. This is in line with other National Governing Bodies. 

Within our sport, we are the only Weightlifting federation worldwide to allow the 

weigh-in within the singlet. This sport specific measure allows athletes over 18 to 

choose to wear the singlet rather than strip down during the weigh in process. Athletes under the age 18 are required to weigh-in wearing a singlet. We have also offered sport specific guidance to the appropriate way to coach an athlete, especially 

about the appropriate way to coach an athlete while minimizing touch during competition. 

In the area of Sports Medicine, USA Weightlifting has a specific Sports Medicine 

policy including a process to sign off on an individual before the opportunity arises 

to work with our athletes. This policy includes the rotation of professionals to balance the need for familiarity with athletes and the protection of athletes by rotating 

medical professionals to reduce the opportunity for abuse. All USA Weightlifting 

Sports Medicine members are reviewed and recommended by their peers ensuring 

there is a level of accountability to the Sports Medicine area. At all times, Sports 

Medicine treatment must be given in the most public forum possible. 

But our work is not done. USA Weightlifting is keen to continue to learn and put 

in place proactive measures to ensure athletes can participate in our sport with as 

little risk as possible. 

Building an athlete-centric culture 

There is a strong need to have an athlete-centric culture within the U.S. Olympic 

& Paralympic Movement, and perhaps in the wider International Olympic Movement too. We set out to create this within USA Weightlifting in 2016. Through feedback from our athletes, we are seeing some success, but our work cannot stop. 

Culture is made up of a great deal of areas, and the work to create a positive 

and athlete-focused culture continues. But at its core, our culture is built by 

proactive collaboration and communication within the athlete population. Since the 

service of athletes is at our core, listening intently to them is how we changed our 

culture at its heart. For example, we handed power to our athletes regarding selection procedures giving our Athlete Advisory Council the right to approve, disapprove 

10 

or amend our process as they as athletes believe it ought to be. We have also involved directly our athlete population, often beyond our elite athletes, in designing 

our athlete remuneration program, and in designing our anti-doping program. 

Proactive communication with athletes means two-way focused communication 

with elite, emerging and non-elite athletes alike. Those are different audiences with 

different needs. But by putting our own biases aside, and actually hearing athletes’ 

concerns and what they wanted from us, we were able to transform our organization. 

Recently, along with other National Governing Bodies, we had the opportunity to 

attend the Olympic & Paralympic Assembly. It was clear that the U.S. Olympic 

Committee has taken and continues to take proactive steps towards a focus on putting athletes first. In the words of our own athlete representative at the Assembly, 

there is reason for optimism towards the steps being taken by the U.S. Olympic 

Committee, including a new Athlete Services division, a renewed focus on winning 

in the right way, and an increased commitment to the ACE program. 

The U.S. Center for SafeSport 

The U.S. Center for SafeSport opened in 2017 with a mission to educate and investigate items related to abuse in sport. 

The concept of the U.S. Center for SafeSport closely resembles that of the United 

States Anti-Doping Agency, set up in 2001. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is recognized worldwide as among the leading National Anti-Doping Organizations 

(NADOs) on the planet. 

Both of these agencies stand independent of the National Governing Bodies, and 

both were started by the U.S. Olympic Committee in response to a significant issue 

of the day. 

One strong difference between the U.S. Center for SafeSport and the U.S. AntiDoping Agency is the amount of funding from the Federal Government. 

This, in turn, leads the Center to have a need for fundraising from private donors. 

While this theoretically makes sense, many of the traditional fundraising sources 

are not available to the center. For example, while organizations in the Olympic 

movement typically have membership income, event income, sponsorships and corporate partners, experience has shown that corporations are not terribly anxious to 

become sponsors of the Center, and the Center does not have the ability to provide 

significant exposure to a sponsor, which is a key element of a corporate partnership. 

Additionally, donor income is a typical resource generation tool for Olympic & 

Paralympic movement organizations, and similarly experience has shown this type 

of organization not only will struggle to attract funds to support these initiatives 

in this manner but this distracts from the core mission of the Center. 

By contrast, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency receives more than $10 million in Federal funding on an annual basis. The U.S. Government is also the leading contributor to the World Anti-Doping Agency. 

This funding allows the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to concentrate on its task of 

leading the charge for Clean Sport within our borders while providing a strong and 

independent voice abroad. 

In many nations, an inherent conflict is created when a Federal Government financially supports and endorses a Ministry of Sport. In turn that Ministry funds 

both an Olympic and/or Paralympic Committee tasked with winning medals as its’ 

primary goal while the very same ministry supports a National Anti-Doping Agency 

to police the Nation’s sporting culture. 

Therefore, the Federal funding given to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency fundamentally upholds its ability to hold the U.S. Olympic Committee, U.S. National Governing Bodies and even International Federations to account while at the same time 

working proactively on additional doping control projects with those same organizations. It also provides for an ultimate accountability to the Federal Government. 

I believe additional funding from the Federal Government, like what has happened with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, will allow the Center to better carry out 

its goals of eliminating abuse in sport, while acting independently and holding the 

entire Olympic and Paralympic movement to account. 

For the part of the Olympic & Paralympic movement, the National Governing 

Body Council committed to double the amount of funding for the Center in 2019 

compared to 2018 and have showed a willingness to do so again. So too, the U.S. 

Olympic Committee has committed over $6 million in funding to the Center for the 

calendar year in 2019, while the NGBs are providing a combined $2 million, including a commitment from our National Governing Body to quadruple our commitment. 

With that said, the headcount and quality of investigative team is still insufficient 

at the Center. It is clear the Center requires additional human and financial resources to ensure its operation processes capability are equal of that of a much more 

11 

mature organization such as the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, and that its independence is unquestioned. 

The addition of further resources from the Federal Government would thus assist 

the Center in a number of ways to truly serve the athlete population in the way 

that is desired by all. One thing that I am confident we all agree on—the Center 

MUST succeed. We need a strong and vibrant Center that can take predatory individuals out of our sports for good, serve as a deterrent for those who might commit 

heinous acts, and to educate the sports community and the general public. 

I do want to commend the Center for the outstanding job that the Center is doing 

in the area of Education. The challenge of managing a mass education program 

across a diverse community like the Olympic and Paralympic movement is indeed 

a large one. While there is space for specialist education tools which the Center are 

currently developing which specifically face athletes and parents, the overall collaboration and educational partnership with the Center has been outstanding. 

3. The USA Weightlifting collaboration with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. 

In order that we protect the rights of the clean athlete, USA Weightlifting has 

developed a proactive relationship with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) 

which respects the independence of the organization. We also participate in additional partnership opportunities to protect clean athletes on the podium. Some of 

these initiatives may provide some practices that could be applied in the area of athlete safety, and to a degree supports how we have designed our athlete safety programs within USA Weightlifting. 

In 2017, USA Weightlifting had 21 domestic positive tests, in 2018 we have realized a much lower number so far. 

Some proactive measures we have taken include a collaboration with USADA to 

ensure that important information on anti-doping is easy to obtain, easy to report 

and easy to use. We have also strategically collaborated with USADA to provide 

anti-doping education as a required element to all of our members before they are 

able to take part in an event. I believe we are the only National Sporting Federation 

worldwide to do so. More recently, we’ve worked with USADA and the International 

Weightlifting Federation to take this approach to the World level. 

We also implemented the Lift Clean program, where we fund USADA to test additional USA Weightlifting athletes in and out of competition with no notice to the 

athlete. This ensures that the anti-doping culture is implemented at the local level. 

It is critically important to note, USA Weightlifting does not have final say on who 

is tested, and we have no involvement in the results management of cases, therefore 

maintaining the independence of the process despite USA Weightlifting acting as a 

funding partner. USA Cycling has a similar program with similar degrees of success. 

Our exceptional work with USADA shows that it is possible for an agency to work 

as an independent enforcement body while strategically collaborating with the National Governing Bodies and to be regarded as the Gold Standards by our athletes. 

4. Cultural Changes within the U.S. Olympic Committee & U.S. Olympic 

Movement 

The recent news that Susanne Lyons will become the President of the U.S. Olympic Committee is outstanding. Ms. Lyons has shown to me personally that she is 

not afraid of the difficult conversations, she thinks of the athlete and ultimately 

that she is a good person. This need for a culture change at the USOC was clear 

when I was told by an Associate Director of the U.S. Olympic Committee with responsibility for National Governing Body relations that within the last three years 

that sponsor needs came before athlete needs. With Ms. Lyons at the helm, and the 

hiring of Sarah Hirshland as CEO, this directional leadership change is exceptional 

news. 

I want to be clear that winning is not a bad thing, but as a Movement, we need 

to win the right way. When Team USA shows up at the Olympic Games, we are 

expected by the American public to win, our athletes want to win, we want to support them to that winning position.. A comfortable, well served, confident athlete 

will ultimately perform better. 

I also want to be clear that there are many individuals within the U.S. Olympic 

Committee who work exceptionally hard to put athletes first, and at the heart of 

what they do. 

The U.S. Olympic Committee remains amongst the most respected and leading 

Olympic Committees worldwide, the only major Olympic Committee to be non-government funded and the only major Olympic Committee to be integrated with the 

National Paralympic Committee. 

12 

There has been clear changes in the culture of the U.S. Olympic Committee over 

the last few months and while cultural work can never cease, it is clear to see that 

there is not only substantive changes occurring within the U.S. Olympic Committee 

but a strong desire to return to the core value of putting athletes at the heart of 

the movement. 

It is also clear that the U.S. Olympic Committee is raising the expectation upon 

National Governing Bodies in matters related both to athlete safety, athlete advocacy and culture. In turn, this leadership position has led to the National Governing 

Bodies taking a role in changing this at the state and local level. 

The Role of Congress in improving the Olympic and Paralympic Movement 

and Youth Sport 

USA Weightlifting appreciates the proactive role Congress and this subcommittee 

in particular has taken in helping the Olympic and Paralympic Movement move forward with the issues we have faced in recent times. 

With that said, Congress could take a more proactive approach in supporting the 

work of the U.S. Center of SafeSport especially in the area of funding. As I previously testified, currently, the funding for the Center is predominately coming from 

within the Olympic and Paralympic movement itself. 

Similarly, it is vital to recognize the risks that exist outside of the Olympic and 

Paralympic movement. While USA Weightlifting and our movement colleagues still 

have work to do, there is a concern that private sector and other organizations running Youth Sport activities in the United States are not necessarily holding themselves to as high a standard as we are striving to do so. 

Ultimately, we believe it is the goal of Congress to protect the youth athletes of 

the United States. To do so, the protections that have been put into place during 

this period in the Olympic & Paralympic Movement must be implemented in other 

youth sports organizations. Similarly, where best practices exist in the other organizations, we must ensure we learn from them. 

Thank you for your time, and I am happy to take any questions you might have. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Andrews, thank you. Thank you for your 

testimony and thank you for the conversation that we have had 

previously. 

Ms. Cammett. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE CAMMETT, PRESIDENT, 

U.S. FIGURE SKATING 

Ms. CAMMETT. Subcommittee Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is Anne Cammett and I am President of U.S. Figure 

Skating. I have been involved with figure skating since I was six 

years old, first as an athlete, then a volunteer official, committee 

member and committee chair. I have been a member of U.S. Figure 

Skating’s board of directors since 2015. In May of this year, I was 

elected the President. 

With me today is our 2010 Olympian and U.S. Figure Skating 

Athlete Advisory Committee Chair, Mark Ladwig. 

U.S. Figure Skating is fully committed to providing a safe, 

healthy, and positive environment for all athletes, members, and 

volunteers. We strongly support the protecting Young Victims from 

Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. Like social 

welfare experts, we believe the best practices for protecting minor 

athletes from abuse are education and awareness training, required background checks for people who have frequent contact 

with minor athletes, and mandatory reporting requirements for alleged and suspected child abuse. U.S. Figure Skating incorporated 

these practices well before the passage of this Act. 

In April, this Committee heard testimony from Mr. Craig 

Maurizi, a U.S. Figure Skating member. During his testimony, Mr. 

13 

Maurizi referred to his 1999 allegations of sexual misconduct 

against a former coach. It is true that Mr. Maurizi’s complaint was 

time-barred under the organization’s reporting rules in effect at 

that time. However, Mr. Maurizi’s case prompted U.S. Figure Skating to examine its rules and procedures in the area of athlete safety. As a result, just months later, U.S. Figure Skating instituted 

its first ever harassment and abuse policy and mandatory reporting 

requirement for all its members. 

The following year, another new rule mandated publishing the 

identity of any banned or suspended members in SKATING magazine, later moving a detailed list to U.S. Figure Skating’s official 

website where it still resides today. Since May 2000, U.S. Figure 

Skating has banned 16 members for sexual misconduct, six for financial irregularities, and two for ethical violations. 

U.S. Figure Skating has worked to strengthen its athlete protection rules and policies for the past two decades. In 2008, U.S. Figure Skating mandated criminal background checks for all coaches 

requesting a credential for any U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned 

event or activity. In 2011, that mandate was expanded to require 

a coach’s continuing education component that included child protection education and awareness. In 2013, as required by the U.S. 

Olympic Committee, we officially launched our SafeSport program, 

consolidating all athlete protection rules and policies into one place. 

When the U.S. Center for SafeSport opened in March 2017, U.S. 

Figure Skating aligned its programs with the center’s requirements. 

We strongly support the U.S. Center for SafeSport, its mission, 

and all who are dedicated to doing everything possible to end abuse 

in sport. In order for the center and the national governing bodies 

to reach their potential in doing so, we respectfully suggest the following going forward. 

So number one, increase funding for the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport to provide more personnel in the areas of education, investigation, and adjudication. Fulfilling the center’s role effectively 

during these formative years is the key to establishing credibility 

and long-term viability. 

Number two, create a coordinate SafeSport public awareness 

campaign that all national governing bodies can use and support 

in solidarity. This campaign should be created by experienced child 

welfare professionals with a goal to educate athletes, parents, 

coaches, and all who work with young athletes to be vigilant, informed, and reactive to all forms of abuse. 

Number three, provide a national database of banned and suspended persons, searchable by name, sport, State and region. 

Number four, amend the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual 

Abuse Act to give subpoena power to the U.S. Center for SafeSport 

to provide more effective investigations and enforcement. 

And number five, finally, at some point in the near future, expand the reach of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. Athletes within 

the jurisdiction of national governing bodies represent a small segment of youth sports participants in the U.S. A full commitment 

to ending abuse in sports must include children that participate 

outside the auspices of the U.S. Olympic movement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. 

14 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cammett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE CAMMETT, PRESIDENT, U.S. FIGURE SKATING

Chairman Thune, Subcommittee Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, 

and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Anne Cammett and I am the President of U.S. Figure Skating. I have 

been involved with figure skating since I was six years old, first as an athlete, then 

a volunteer official, committee member and committee chair. I have been a member 

of U.S. Figure Skating’s Board of Directors since 2015. In May of this year, I was 

elected President. 

U.S. Figure Skating is the national governing body for the sport of figure skating 

in the United States. U.S. Figure Skating is comprised of approximately 700 member clubs and 1000 Learn to Skate USA programs, representing more than 192,000 

members nationwide. The mission of U.S. Figure Skating is to provide programs to 

encourage participation and achievement in the sport of figure skating. We are 

charged with the development of the sport on all levels, from those learning to skate 

through the athletes representing the United States on the World and Olympic 

teams. As the national governing body for the sport of figure skating, we have the 

jurisdiction to sanction competitions, test sessions and exhibitions; to establish the 

rules and guidelines by which the sport is governed; and to name and nominate the 

athletes who represent the United States in international competition. 

U.S. Figure Skating is fully committed to providing a safe, healthy and positive 

environment for all athletes, members and volunteers. We strongly support the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. 

Like social welfare experts, we believe the best practices for protecting minor athletes from abuse are education and awareness training, requiring background 

checks for people who have frequent contact with minor athletes, and mandatory reporting requirements for alleged and suspected child abuse. U.S. Figure Skating incorporated these practices well before the passage of the Protecting Young Victims 

from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. 

In April, this committee heard testimony from Mr. Craig Maurizi, a U.S. Figure 

Skating member. During his testimony, Mr. Maurizi referred to his 1999 allegations 

of sexual misconduct against a former coach. It is true that Mr. Maurizi’s complaint 

was time-barred under the organization’s reporting rules in effect at that time. However, Mr. Maurizi’s case prompted U.S. Figure Skating to examine its rules and procedures in the area of Athlete Safety. As a result, just months later, U.S. Figure 

Skating instituted its first ever Harassment and Abuse Policy and a mandatory reporting requirement for all its members. In May of 2000, U.S. Figure Skating added 

to its official Rulebook that if any form of child abuse is observed or suspected by 

a member, the member must immediately contact local law enforcement or a public 

child welfare agency and make a report. In addition, the member must also make 

a report to U.S. Figure Skating’s Ethics Chair. The following year, another new rule 

mandated publishing the identity of any banned or suspended members in SKATING magazine, later moving a detailed list to U.S. Figure Skating’s official website, 

where it still resides today. U.S. Figure Skating has acted promptly on every incident reported to it of suspected sexual abuse or misconduct since the new policy was 

enacted in May 2000. Since May 2000, U.S. Figure Skating has banned 16 members 

for sexual misconduct, six for financial irregularities, and two for ethical violations. 

U.S. Figure Skating has worked to strengthen its Athlete Protection rules and 

policies for the past two decades. In 2008, U.S. Figure Skating mandated criminal 

background checks for all coaches requesting a credential for any U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned event or activity. In 2011, that mandate was expanded to require a 

coaches’ Continuing Education component that included child protection education 

and awareness. In 2013, as required by the U.S. Olympic Committee, U.S. Figure 

Skating officially launched its SafeSport Program, consolidating all Athlete Protection rules and policies into one place. 

When the U.S. Center for SafeSport opened in March 2017, U.S. Figure Skating 

aligned its program with the Center’s requirements, including expanding the policy 

for those required to submit to background checks and mandated the SafeSport 

Training Program for required adults. 

U.S. Figure Skating strongly supports the U.S. Center for SafeSport, its mission 

and all who are dedicated to do everything possible to end abuse in sport. In order 

for the Center and national governing bodies to reach their potential in doing so, 

U.S. Figure Skating respectfully suggests the following going forward: 

1. Increase funding for the U.S. Center for SafeSport to provide more personnel 

in the areas of education, investigation and adjudication. Fulfilling the Center’s 

15 

role effectively during these formative years is the key to establishing credibility and long-term viability. 

2. Create a coordinated SafeSport public awareness campaign that all national 

governing bodies can use and support in solidarity. This campaign should be 

created by experienced child-welfare professionals with a goal to educate athletes, parents, coaches and all who work with young athletes to be vigilant, informed and reactive to all forms of abuse. 

3. Provide a national database of banned and suspended persons, searchable by 

name, sport, state and region. 

4. Amend the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act to give subpoena 

power to the U.S. Center for SafeSport to provide more effective investigations 

and enforcement. 

5. Finally, at some point in the near future, expand the reach of the U.S. Center 

for SafeSport. Athletes within the jurisdiction of national governing bodies represent only a small segment of youth sports participants in the United States. 

A full commitment to ending abuse in sports must include children who participate outside the auspices of the U.S. Olympic movement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic. I am happy to respond to 

any questions members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Hinchey. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY HINCHEY III, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, USA SWIMMING 

Mr. HINCHEY. Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, 

and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. 

I would like to begin by acknowledging and apologizing for the 

abuse suffered by children, athletes, other participates in swimming programs. The organization as a whole and I personally deeply regret the experiences of some of our members that have included sexual, physical, or emotional misconduct. I am personally 

committed to doing whatever I can to prevent such abuse from happening in the future. 

On May 23 this year, I testified before the House of Representatives about the comprehensive abuse prevention and response program that USA Swimming has worked to create and develop since 

2010. Today, I would like to describe more recent efforts that USA 

Swimming has made to demonstrate our continued commitment to 

providing safe and healthy environments for our swimmers. 

Over the past five months, efforts have included the USA Swimming board of directors voted to set aside $1.5 million to fund a reserve for SwimAssist costs. Established in 2014, SwimAssist is 

USA Swimming’s survivor assistance fund. This approval will ensure that resources are available to meet the needs of those who 

suffered abuse in swimming. 

The SafeSport Committee, which is made up of a group of dedicated volunteers, including athletes, coaches, and parents, met and 

discussed various ways to enhance the organization’s athlete protection efforts. I have also personally met with several survivors. 

Their input has been among the most powerful, compelling, and effective I have received. 

USA Swimming debuted its new Club Recognition Program. This 

program encourages local clubs to implement additional athlete 

protection education, policies, and practices. 

16 

USA Swimming national team members and alums, including a 

survivor, created a public service announcement to take a stand 

against athlete abuse. 

Additionally, we are in preliminary discussions with our largest 

team management platform to push SafeSport content through 

local team websites to administrators and parents. Team websites 

help parents stay up to date for practices and meet information, 

and this is a tremendous opportunity to reach out to our parents. 

USA Swimming also recognizes the value in taking the smaller 

routine steps day in and day out, as well as partnering with other 

organizations that are experts and leaders in this space, both of 

which are further detailed in my written testimony. 

USA Swimming sits before you today as one member of the 

Olympic sports community. The United States Olympic Committee 

has indicated that there will be heightened expectations and greater oversight over national governing bodies with respect to abuse 

prevention and response, and we welcome that. 

The U.S. Center for SafeSport has indicated that national governing bodies must adopt the center’s policies and use their education and training. We also welcome that. 

There is no pride of ownership when it comes to athlete protection. U.S. Swimming will lead in this space, but we will do so humbly, learning from those who are willing to teach. 

As we gather to discuss abuse prevention efforts across the 

Olympic movement, we acknowledge there is no simple solution. It 

will take Congress, the United States Olympic Committee, the U.S. 

Center for SafeSport, U.S. Swimming, and all 49 national governing bodies to work together to put together a comprehensive 

framework in place that creates safe environments, prevents abuse, 

responds effectively when it occurs, and achieves systemic change. 

There must be a comprehensive approach because anything else 

will be inadequate. 

As that collective effort progresses, USA Swimming is committed 

to the continued development of our own program. We have been 

busy enhancing our athlete protection efforts since I first testified 

five months ago, and we will stay busy. I have said before and I 

say it today and I will forever say that providing a safe and 

healthy environment to our children, athletes, and members is our 

top priority. 

I look forward to sharing our experiences, learning from our 

peers, and working with you to prevent abuse, including child sexual abuse, in sport. 

And I very much look forward to answering your questions today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinchey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY HINCHEY III, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

USA SWIMMING

Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Earlier this year, I testified before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations regarding The Olympic 

Community’s Ability to Protect Athletes from Sexual Abuse. Today, as then, I begin 

by acknowledging and apologizing for the abuse suffered by children, athletes, and 

other participants in swimming programs. The organization as a whole, and I personally, deeply regret the experiences of some of our members that included sexual, 

physical, or emotional misconduct. 

17 

On May 23, I testified about the comprehensive abuse prevention and response 

program that USA Swimming has worked to create and develop since 2010. I have 

included for your reference a copy of my prepared testimony to the House of Representatives. Today, I would like to describe the efforts that USA Swimming has 

made over the past five months to highlight our continued commitment to providing 

safe and healthy environments to our swimmers and other members. 

From an employment perspective, immediately following my prior testimony, I 

held an all-staff meeting and reiterated the organization’s commitment to athlete 

protection as its top priority. Anyone uncomfortable with that reality was advised 

to develop an exit strategy. USA Swimming then hired a Safe Sport Coordinator 

and Associate Counsel to enhance our operational capabilities. Their respective 

backgrounds include serving as a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator in the 

United States Army and a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in the special victim’s team 

sex crimes and child abuse unit, and their skill sets complement the other members 

of the Safe Sport staff, which now totals eight—four core and four support. These 

staff members work with countless other Safe Sport Champions, including a twelvemember Safe Sport Committee, four national Zone Safe Sport Coordinators, 59 Local 

Swim Committee Safe Sport Coordinators, twelve Safe Sport Athlete Fellows, hundreds of Safe Sport Club Coordinators, and the organization’s Board of Directors to 

foster a culture of athlete protection throughout the organization. 

Last week, USA Swimming participated in the U.S. Aquatics Sports Convention— 

a gathering of aquatics National Governing Bodies. I have included for your reference my 2018 State of the Sport report, which was distributed to all Convention 

attendees and published on USA Swimming’s website. 

The Convention began with a USA Swimming Board of Directors meeting where the Board voted to designate $1.5 million dollars of reserves to fund SwimAssist 

costs that may exceed the operating budget. Established in 2014, SwimAssist is 

USA Swimming’s victim assistance fund, and this approval will ensure that resources are available to meet the needs of those who suffered abuse in connection 

with their participation in swimming. 

I also attended a Safe Sport Committee meeting, where a group of dedicated volunteers, representing all facets of the organization, addressed various ways to enhance the organization’s athlete protection efforts. They discussed, among others, 

the development of USA Swimming’s Training the Trainers program, athlete-tocoach transition resources, communications strategies, and case trends. Immediately 

following the Committee meeting, USA Swimming Safe Sport staff previewed its 

new Club Recognition Program, which incentivizes member clubs to exceed the organization’s Safe Sport minimum requirements by promoting additional athlete protection education, policies, and best practices. 

Also at the Convention, the One Love Foundation offered two in-person training 

opportunities on healthy and unhealthy behaviors within power-based and peer relationships, after previously co-hosting a webinar with USA Swimming. According 

to its website, ‘‘One Love is the national leader in educating young people about 

healthy and unhealthy relationships and galvanizing them as leaders of change.’’ 

USA Swimming recognizes the tremendous value in partnering with other organizations that are experts and leaders in this space and that can add a voice and perspective to what we develop and promote internally. 

To that end, USA Swimming has engaged Praesidium to review its Safe Sport 

educational content and provide feedback. Praesidium is a national leader in preventing sexual abuse within organizations. For over two decades, they have worked 

with 4,000 youth and vulnerable adult serving organizations and have a wealth of 

knowledge and experience to share. Moreover, this initiative was undertaken in direct response to feedback we received regarding our educational materials, including 

by survivors of sexual abuse within the sport. The input several survivors have provided over the past five months has been among the most powerful, compelling and 

effective I’ve received, and I will continue to solicit, listen to, and implement it. 

We are also in preliminary stages of discussions with one of our largest team 

management platforms to push Safe Sport content through team websites to team 

administrators and parents. This is a watershed opportunity for our athlete protection program, whose key audience is swim parents, even though parents are not 

typically members and therefore more challenging to reach. 

Finally, USA Swimming recognizes the value of its own athlete leaders and role 

models and has worked with a number of its National Team members and alums 

to create a public service announcement for national television and digital media 

distribution to take a stand against athlete abuse. 

These are some of the bigger initiatives that the organization has undertaken over 

the past five months, but there is also considerable value in taking the smaller, 

more routine steps, day-in and day-out. 

18 

Such steps have included USA Swimming: 

• Working with the U.S. Center for SafeSport to vet all of its Board of Director 

candidates, Pan Pacific and Junior Pan Pacific Championship coaches, and 2019 

medical staff and managers prior to nomination or appointment. 

• Strengthening its internal policy regarding independent contractors to ensure 

that those with direct contact with athletes are subject to a criminal background check and complete Safe Sport training. 

• Updating its membership registration form to acknowledge the mandatory reporting requirements of the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 

Safe Sport Authorization Act. 

• Distributing an all member communication regarding its SwimAssist program 

as an initial step to ensure that this resource is well known and utilized. 

• Continuing to meet and engage with survivors and taking preliminary steps to 

develop a survivor support network for those who are interested. 

• And, since May 28, 2018, USA Swimming has trained over 400 individuals— 

including coaches, athletes, and parents—in in-person workshops offered at 

member club visits to the Olympic Training Center, Regional Coaches Clinics, 

and national programs. 

USA Swimming sits before you today as one member of the U.S. Olympic sport 

community. The United States Olympic Committee has indicated that there will be 

heightened expectations and greater oversight over all National Governing Bodies 

with respect to abuse prevention and response. We welcome that. The U.S. Center 

for SafeSport has indicated that National Governing Bodies must adopt the Center’s 

policies and utilize their education and training. We welcome that, too. There is no 

pride of ownership in athlete protection; USA Swimming will lead in this space, but 

we will do so humbly, learning from those who are willing and able to teach. 

Finally, USA Swimming recognizes that we are a member of a youth serving organizations community broader than just the Olympic Movement, and, as such, we 

have an obligation to learn from and to share with our peers. Since May 23, 2018, 

USA Swimming has attended the National Sexual Assault Conference co-hosted by 

the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. USA Swimming also contributed to programming at the Beyond 

Sport Summit put on as part of the International Safeguards for Children in Sport. 

USA Swimming staff serves as a working group lead within the International Safeguards for Children in Sport Initiative, organized through UNICEF. Later this year, 

USA Swimming will attend the 2018 International Youth Protection Symposium 

hosted by the Boy Scouts of America; abuse prevention programming related to 

aquatic facilities conducted during the World Aquatic Health Conference; and the 

Praesidium Guardian Program. Finally, USA Swimming will host its own Safe Sport 

Leadership Conference on January 31–February 1, 2019 and each of you are invited 

and encouraged to attend. 

As we gather to discuss Protecting U.S. Amateur Athletes: Examining Abuse Prevention Efforts Across the Olympic Movement, we acknowledge there is no simple solution. Even within one organization, there are different audiences that require different content through different medium and different factual circumstances that require different responses and different outcomes. 

It will take Congress, the United States Olympic Committee, the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport, USA Swimming, and the other forty-nine National Governing Bodies to 

work together to put a comprehensive framework in place that creates safe environments, prevents abuse, and responds effectively when it occurs. There must be a 

comprehensive approach because anything else would be inadequate. 

And as that collective effort progresses, USA Swimming is committed to the continued development of its own abuse prevention and response program. We have 

been busy enhancing our athlete protection efforts since I last testified five months 

ago, and we will stay busy. I have said before, I say today, and I will say forever, 

providing a safe and healthy environment to our children, athletes and members is 

my and the organization’s top priority. 

I look forward to sharing our experiences, learning from our peers, and assisting 

you in any way we can to prevent abuse, including child sexual abuse, in sport. 

19 

ATTACHMENT

PREPARED TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY HINCHEY III 

BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

MAY 23, 2018 

Chairman Harper, Ranking Member DeGette, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

In 2010, long before Larry Nassar’s prolific sexual abuse of minor gymnasts became known, USA Swimming faced its own reality that children and swimmers 

were being sexually abused in sport. 

First and foremost, USA Swimming acknowledges and deeply regrets the abuse 

suffered by children, athletes, and other participants in swimming programs. Participation in sport should offer physical, social and emotional benefits, but for some, 

it has resulted in abuse and trauma that will negatively impact the rest of their 

lives. That is inexcusable, and like those of you who sit before me, I am deeply committed to providing a safe and healthy environment for children to grow, play and 

compete. 

While recognizing that much work remains to be done, as this Subcommittee examines the Olympic Community’s Ability to Protect Athletes from Sexual Abuse, let 

me describe steps that USA Swimming has taken. 

In 2010, USA Swimming established a comprehensive abuse prevention and response program called Safe Sport. However, USA Swimming’s Safe Sport is not a 

novel program. It is based on six well-established pillars of youth-serving abuse prevention programs, including: (i) Policies & Guidelines; (ii) Screening & Selection; (iii) 

Training & Education; (iv) Monitoring & Supervision; (v) Recognizing, Responding 

& Reporting; and (vi) Grassroots Engagement & Feedback. USA Swimming 

partnered with the Child Welfare League of America and received guidance from the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children in its creation. 

In 2010, USA Swimming also hired an Athlete Protection Officer, the first position of its kind in the Olympic movement, and established a national Safe Sport 

Committee, charged with review of the organization’s athlete protection policies, 

guidelines, educational programs, and reporting and adjudication procedures. 

Over the past eight years, the Safe Sport program has evolved: 

• USA Swimming’s Code of Conduct has been updated numerous times to enhance athlete protection. 

• Reporting policies and procedures have been broadened. 

• Over ninety individuals have been banned from membership for sexual misconduct and published on USA Swimming’s banned list. 

• Criminal background checks have been enhanced. Currently, we conduct monthly recurring reports on our 50,000 non-athlete members, resulting in approximately 600,000 annual checks of the adults who have access to children. 

• USA Swimming’s Safe Sport champions have grown to two full-time staff, four 

additional support staff, a twelve-member Safe Sport Committee, four national 

Zone Safe Sport Coordinators, 59 Local Swim Committee Safe Sport Coordinators, and twelve Safe Sport Athlete Fellows, in addition to the organization’s 

Board of Directors. 

• Educational initiatives have increased. Athlete Protection Training is required 

for all non-athlete members and must be renewed every other year, free Safe 

Sport training is available to parents and athletes, and over 10,000 individuals 

have received Safe Sport training in in-person workshops or conferences. 

• Finally, a victim’s assistance fund, SwimAssist, was established following the 

2014 assessment of USA Swimming’s Safe Sport program by the Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center. 

However, child sexual abuse still occurs in swimming. The organization can, 

should and will do more, and I will lead that effort. I am a father of six; three girls 

and three boys; ages 30 to 11, and I am a swimmer. I swam at the University of 

California—Irvine and I still participate in a Master’s Swimming program. Upon assuming the role of President & CEO of USA Swimming in July 2017, I recognized 

Safe Sport’s significance to the organization, and the opportunity to work with the 

Subcommittee in this investigation has only intensified my commitment to make 

20 

protecting children and athletes USA Swimming’s top priority. There will be no 

complacency on my watch. 

To that end, we have a number of new initiatives underway and are vetting even 

more. The Safe Sport recognized club program will enhance athlete protection efforts at the local level. The ‘‘Training the Trainers’’ program will increase the number of advocates spreading the Safe Sport message throughout the organization. And 

I have and will continue to meet and engage with survivors of abuse to ensure that 

we hear their voices and learn from their experiences. 

In addition to its own efforts, USA Swimming will continue to be a responsible 

leader, steward and member of the Olympic sport community. USA Swimming embraces its obligations under the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 

Safe Sport Authorization Act and already has policies in place which require reporting, prohibit retaliation, and limit one-on-one interactions between adults and children. Further, USA Swimming supports the U.S. Center for Safe Sport and is fully 

committed to its success. We will provide meaningful engagement and support to 

it in any way we can. 

While we cannot change the past, we will learn from it and do better. Our commitment to preventing child sexual abuse and providing a safe and healthy environment for our athletes is constant and long-lasting. 

21 


1003ADDO1.eps
22 


1003ADDO2.eps
23 


1003ADDO3.eps
24 


1003ADDO4.eps
25 


1003ADDO5.eps
26 


1003ADDO6.eps
27 


1003ADDO7.eps
28 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Hinchey, thank you for your testimony 

today and our conversations previously. 

Mr. Steele. 

STATEMENT OF DARRIN STEELE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

USA BOBSLED AND SKELETON 

Mr. STEELE. Good afternoon, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 

Blumenthal, Senators of the Subcommittee. 

In 2007, I accepted the position of CEO of the U.S. Bobsled and 

Skeleton Federation, now USA Bobsled & Skeleton. And I still had 

fond memories of competing in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympic 

Games in bobsled. So I was excited about returning to that. But I 

also knew it would not be an easy role. The organization had just 

been restructured by the USOC due to a series of leadership mishaps, including mismanagement of sexual harassment allegations 

against one of the coaches in 2005. 

That issue had been resolved by the time the new board hired 

me, but we still needed to establish a professional, performancebased culture. So through the USOC, I set up mandatory training 

for all staff and coaches on EEOC protections and workplace standards to ensure our people were trained and expectations were clear 

from the very start. But policies can only be effective if the leadership sets the example. This is part of our culture at USABS and 

we never compromise those values, particularly with the leadership 

team. 

Much has happened since then, including the creation of the U.S. 

Center for SafeSport. Although we have not needed to utilize the 

center for investigating claims, they have been incredibly valuable 

for offering training, awareness, policy guidance, and education to 

our athletes, coaches, and staff. We have adopted a SafeSport policy and updated our bylaws to reflect our commitment to protecting 

athletes. 

The recent abuses of our young athletes at the hands of those 

they trusted is beyond deplorable and we must do everything in 

our power to identify the root causes for why each and every abuse 

happened and what it will take to make sure similar abuses are 

not repeated in the future. USA Bobsled & Skeleton is fortunate. 

We have been able to protect our athletes thus far, but no organization is immune to the threat and we can never be complacent in 

our policies, rules, or standards of conduct. I say ‘‘our athletes’’ because collectively we all represent Olympic sport and when one organization fails to protect an athlete, we all have failed that athlete. 

We are not a large NGB and we have unique challenges. And 

that was one of the topics, the uniqueness of the NGB, so I am 

going to speak a little bit to that. 

Kids do not compete in bobsled and skeleton in high school and 

college. So we are responsible for finding them, introducing them 

to the sport, training all levels from beginner to Olympic medalist. 

We have to hire foreign coaches or develop coaches on our own. Our 

costs are high due to the importance of technology and high cost 

of shipping that technology around the world. We do not raise 

money from events or membership. So we rely on sponsors, donors, 

29 

and the USOC for funding. And the USOC is the largest contributor to that funding. 

There are three key factors necessary to win a race in bobsled 

and skeleton: competitive pushing at the start, competitive driving 

down the hill, and a competitive sled. Between 1960 and 1998, the 

USA only had two of those three, and we experienced a 46-year 

medal drought. 

Prior to 1998, bobsled pilots were responsible for buying or building their own sleds, while other nations invested millions on sled 

technology. That changed when NASCAR driver Geoff Bodine came 

forward, and we began a partnership to build American sleds and 

provide them to the national team. We started a similar project 

with BMW North America in 2010. And because of those two programs, every single bobsled medal that has been earned by the 

U.S. after 1956 was either in a Bo-Dyn or BMW bobsled. In the 

past five winter games, 30 American athletes were standing on the 

medal podium at the Olympic Games thanks to our investment in 

technology. And without the modest but critical funding provided 

by the USOC, it simply would not be possible. 

The first part of our mission statement is to enable United States 

athletes to achieve sustained competitive excellence in Olympic 

competition. If we fail to protect athletes, that mission is not possible. 

And as we explore strategies for improving athlete protection, the 

uniqueness of the NGBs must be considered. We should also exercise caution when considering the massive changes that have been 

talked about within the USOC that will impact NGBs in drastically 

different ways, and we want to make sure those changes are actually improving the protection of athletes. We owe it to our athletes 

to both ensure they are protected and help them achieve their 

dreams of representing the United States in the Olympic Games. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the important issues 

facing the Olympic family. And I will be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steele follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARRIN STEELE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

USA BOBSLED & SKELETON

Good afternoon Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Senators of 

the Subcommittee. In 2007, I accepted the position of CEO of the U.S. Bobsled and 

Skeleton Federation (USBSF), now called USA Bobsled & Skeleton (USABS). I still 

had fond memories from competing in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympic Games 

in the sport of bobsled, and I was excited to return. But, I also knew it would not 

be an easy role. There had been a revolving door at the Executive Director level and 

the organization was being restructured by the USOC due to a series of missteps, 

including mismanagement of sexual harassment allegations against one of the 

coaches in 2005. 

Those issues had been resolved when I began my CEO role and a new board had 

been named. We needed to establish a professional, performance-based culture, so 

through the USOC, I set up mandatory training for all staff and coaches on EEOC 

protections and workplace standards to ensure our people were trained and expectations were clear from the very start. Policies are only effective if they are backed 

up with demonstrated behaviors of the leadership. This is part of our culture at 

USABS and we never compromise those values, particularly with the leadership 

team. 

The recent abuses of our young athletes that have been uncovered at the hands 

of those they trusted is beyond deplorable and we must do everything in our power 

to identify the root causes for why each and every abuse happened, and what it will 

30 

take to make sure similar abuses do not happen to others in the future. USA Bobsled & Skeleton is fortunate to have been able to protect our athletes thus far, but 

no organization is immune to this threat and we can never be complacent in our 

policies, rules, or standards of conduct. I say, ‘‘our young athletes’’ because collectively, we all represent Olympic sport and when one organization fails to protect an 

athlete, we all have failed that athlete. 

We are not a large NGB and we have unique challenges. Our membership is 

small and although we have not needed to utilize the SafeSport organization for investigating claims, they have been incredibly valuable for offering training, awareness, policy guidance and education to our athletes, coaches, and staff. We have 

adopted a SafeSport policy and updated our bylaws to reflect our commitment to 

protecting athletes and supporting the SafeSport organization. 

Another way our NGB is unique is that we do not have a direct athlete pipeline 

from the university system, so we are responsible for finding athletes, introducing 

them to the sports, and training all levels from beginners to Olympic medalists. We 

are also responsible for developing coaches or hiring them away from our competitors. We do not generate revenue from events or membership, so we rely on sponsors, donors and the USOC for funding. The largest portion of that funding comes 

from the USOC. This is largely due to the importance technology plays in our sports 

and the high cost of shipping that technology around the world for international 

competitions. 

Prior to 1998, bobsled pilots were responsible for purchasing their own sleds and 

the U.S. fell far behind our competitors around the world. That is the single largest 

contributor to the 46-year medal drought we experienced prior to 2002. Geoff Bodine 

came forward after the 1992 Olympic Games and we began a partnership with the 

Bo-Dyn Bobsled Project to build American bobsleds that were owned by USBSF and 

provided to the National Team. We started a similar technology program focused 

on the 2-Man bobsled discipline in 2010 with our partners at BMW North America. 

Every bobsled medal that has been earned by the USA after 1956 was earned in 

either a Bo-Dyn bobsled or BMW bobsled. To put that in perspective, in the past 

five Winter Olympic Games, 30 American athletes were standing on a medal podium 

at the Olympic Games thanks to our investment in technology. Six of those thirty 

got to watch the American flag rise to the playing of the National Anthem. Our 

coaches and athletes were a big part of those programs, but without our technology 

partners and the modest, but critical funding provided by the USOC, it simply 

would not have been possible. That is the reality of our sport. 

The first part of our mission statement is to ‘‘. . . enable United States athletes 

to achieve sustained competitive excellence in Olympic competition.’’ That is only 

possible if we begin with, and maintain as our highest priority, their protection. The 

uniqueness of the NGBs must be considered as we explore strategies for improving 

athlete protection. Therefore, we must exercise caution against the temptation to 

paint well-run NGBs who are effectively protecting their athletes with the same 

broad brush used for NGBs that have failed to do the same. The same caution 

should be used when considering massive structural changes within the USOC that 

will impact the NGBs in drastically different ways. We owe it to our athletes to both 

ensure they are protected and help them to achieve their dreams of representing 

the United States in the Olympic Games. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the important issues facing the Olympic 

family. We can never stop looking for gaps in the system or for ways to make our 

sports safer for athletes. I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Steele, thank you very much. 

I am going to depart to go cast a vote, and I am going to ask 

Senator Capito to chair the hearing. I will be back in time to relieve her of those duties so that she can go vote. But that way we 

will continue our hearing without a pause or a recess. So I will return shortly. And thank you, Shelly. 

Senator CAPITO [presiding]. Thank you all very much. And we 

will start the questioning with Senator Cortez Masto. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you all for being 

here. I know this is the fourth hearing, and I so appreciate the 

31 

chair and Ranking Member in continuing down this important discussion. 

And, Mr. Hinchey, I want to thank you for sitting down with me 

yesterday and talking with me. 

So the question I want to start for the panel that I have is to 

what extent are you personally and your leadership and staff actively engaging with both the Athletes Advisory Council, as well as 

victims of sexual abuse, to help direct your programming to stamp 

out the culture of abuse that has enabled what we have seen these 

predators to target athletes. Can you talk a little bit about that, 

what you are doing individually or within your organization? Mr. 

Andrews, please. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Senator. 

We have tried to create a culture since 2016 of really putting 

athletes at the heart of everything we do. Ultimately athletes are 

who we serve first and foremost. They are the people who step on 

the platform and lift the heavy weights in our case, literally. 

To your questions, we have on our board a USOC Athlete Advisory Council representative who has an alternate. We have a second athlete on our board. We also have in common with, I suspect, 

every national governing body our own athlete advisory council, 

which we work with directly. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, that is the body that actually has the final approval as a 

whole on our selection procedures, for example. 

To your point, I mentioned in my opening remarks our specific 

actions that we have taken as a result of the feedback of victims 

of abuse, not just in our sport but in others. Plus, I make myself 

personally, as do my staff, available by phone, e-mail, and at 

events. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. So let me make it a little easier because 

I appreciate that. And let me be more specific because this is an 

area I have worked in. 

Now we need to change the culture, and we need experts to come 

in and help. Normally I do. I think we all do when we are trying 

to address this issue. 

So what are you doing in general to change this culture? What 

have you put in place? What experts have you relied upon to come 

in to help with education, to help with training, to help with understanding how we change this culture? Is there anybody that you 

have reached out to in the professional field to address this issue? 

And I have only five minutes. So I am going to ask if you do not 

have anything like that, just please say so, then we can move on. 

Mr. ANDREWS. No. Our biggest experts on athletes are athletes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. Cammett. 

Ms. CAMMETT. Thank you. I appreciate the direction. 

What we have done is in the fall last year, we hired a SafeSport 

counsel who is in-taking all the information and has that expertise. 

We currently are looking for another position to hire which will address specifically education and training. 

Our AAC is very involved. Mark Ladwig, our AAC Chair, is here 

today with us. And we really have engaged our athletes to speak 

up and have a voice. We have a new campaign, if you will, called 

Your Voice, and it is the better known skaters more public facing 

32 

to come into communities and work with children in that community to help them understand that they do have a voice and they 

can speak up. And then we have also worked on education and 

training after speaking to survivors so we could make it more focused. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. We have several different—in the last 6 months or 

so, we have had an opportunity to have several different groups of 

national team athletes that are at the Olympic Training Center. So 

we have invited them to lunch to speak to them directly and getting their feedback and asking them what they need more from us 

and how we can further engage. 

We are a large organization that has 3,000 member clubs. So our 

SafeSport department has an ability to get out to as many zone 

meetings, regional meetings, or invite ourselves to talk about curriculum and engage those athletes. Most recently, we started our 

first ever athlete leadership conference last April in Houston that 

I attended. I spoke to these athletes. These athletes are the 13 to 

17-year-olds that are not necessarily going to be Olympic athletes 

but those that are at their local clubs that have an opportunity influence a greater number of their teammates than we can. So we 

have met with them and talked to them. 

And then from a content perspective, we have taken some criticism based on meeting with some survivors on our content. So we 

have halted that distribution. We have hired Praesidium to come 

in and audit that fully. We look forward to having that content improved and then listening to the athletes on the best possible methods to distribute that. 

And even last week at our convention, we met with some of our 

SafeSport fellows, which are again local club athletes, and they 

were very critical of the fact that we are not helping them with the 

right tools and specifically with social media communication. So 

that will be the next expertise we hire outside. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Mr. Steele. 

Mr. STEELE. Our AAC members are part of the board. We have 

regular communication with them. Getting feedback from the athletes is one of the most important things in identifying maybe some 

unknown issues that are out there. And so that is one of things 

that we do pretty much on an annual basis. I do a post-season survey for the athletes, and they are very candid about what they are 

happy about, what they are not happy about. 

In addition to that, we are doing culture training with the entire 

organization. It is not necessarily related to Safe Sport because 

that is not the primary issue or an issue that we have experienced 

really in quite a while. But culture training is important and that 

involves engaging with the athletes and finding out what gaps they 

see. So People Academy is the group that we are working with on 

that. And that is pretty much it. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

I noticed my time is up. Thank you 

33 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

I thank all of you for being here today and thank you for working 

to enact the Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act that 

we passed here in the Congress. 

When we had the athletes in front of us two panels ago I believe, 

the question I asked was about mental health and sports psychologists. I was kind of surprised at the answer that I got, realizing 

these are elite athletes at the top of their sport and at the same 

time young, still formulating minds at the same time. I was surprised that none of them, as I recall, expressed the accessibility to 

any kind of mental health professional or sports counseling because 

a lot of sports have a very big mental aspect to them as well. 

So I am interested in knowing, how the NGB is maintaining 

mental health options for the young athletes? Are you providing 

those? How is that being provided for? Are you aware that there 

is any kind of professional, and are they aware of it? Is there something like that? 

I will start with you, Ms. Cammett, at figure skating. 

Ms. CAMMETT. Thank you. 

Yes, we do provide it for our lead athletes, and they are made 

aware of it. We have what is called an International Selection Pool 

(ISP), which includes top athletes from which we draw the names 

of kids or athletes that we send internationally. We then have 

Team USA, once you get to travel. Those individuals that are on 

our ISP they have these services available to them. 

Senator CAPITO. Are they using them, or do you know? 

Ms. CAMMETT. They are using them. Especially, when we get to 

the Olympic level. We definitely have ongoing providers that we 

use. Sometimes what happens is they start while they are in Colorado Springs. They meet with a USOC psychologist or mental 

health service provider. Then when they go back to their home, we 

follow up and make sure that there is a provider there. But even 

right after I became President, there was a request for it, and so 

I got to see firsthand what we do. We take it very seriously because 

as you mentioned, it is a huge component when you get to the elite 

level. 

Senator CAPITO. Does anybody else want to comment? Mr. Hinchey? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. Our national team services director, who 

manages our, currently, 60 athletes in our national team program, 

is in contact with the athletes individually and collectively about 

resources that we have at USA Swimming to provide mental health 

care in addition to other medical services. Our sports medicine director is also interacting with medical services people at the Olympic Training Center, as well as, other places that we travel. So we 

try to travel with somebody that has the ability to be supportive. 

We have a sports psychologist that also travels with us to our most 

important Olympic Gold level meets, which are international 

meets. It is something we are hearing a lot about from some of our 

most famous athletes and current national teamers. It is something 

that our national team director wants to do more. 

34 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. I just saw actually a billboard with Michael 

Phelps talking about mental health. 

And I see it too not just to help them reach maximum performance, but also if there is a situation where a coach or a trusted individual in their life is abusing them in any way, that is another 

outlet for that person in the privacy of a medical professional to be 

able to speak more freely and more openly. So I am glad to know 

that that is going on. 

The other question I asked was about their medical records. Obviously, this involved the doctor in Michigan. It seemed that there 

again was a lot of, ‘‘I do not really know where my medical records 

are.’’ ‘‘He gave me prescriptions.’’ ‘‘I do not know who kept track 

of all this.’’ 

What kind of things are you all doing? Do you all have access 

to medical records, or is that kept within the privacy of the individual? Do athletes and guardians have access to this when it is 

necessary? How do you work those kinds of privacy issues, along 

with oversight issues? Anybody want to start with that? Ms. 

Cammett? 

Ms. CAMMETT. Yes, I can. 

The skaters in our situation are trained individually. They decide 

who their coach should be and things like that. So they are distributed throughout the country. And so they have their own personal 

care provider, regular doctor they would see, or if they are training 

perhaps in Colorado Springs, then they would have a provider 

there. 

As officials and as President of U.S. Figure Skating, I do not 

have access to those records. They are HIPAA. We do have a centralized people group that, I should say, can have that knowledge 

when we are deciding to send our athletes because athletes do 

agree, when they are going to travel, that they are healthy. 

So does that address your question? 

Senator CAPITO. It does. It does. I just think, as anybody knows, 

if you have your own home provider and let us say you are over 

in Europe competing with your team and you are a young man or 

woman and you have a headache or something or you hurt yourself, you are administered some kind of prescription medication. 

You can see how the records could maybe not be updated as things 

happen such as in regular medical care. Even if you are staying in 

the same community, you might go to a specialist and a general 

practitioner. Getting your records centralized I think is important 

to better health care, but also to more transparency where young 

athletes might be more vulnerable to accepting medical advice. Nobody is really looking at what might be conflicting with other 

things and things of that nature. 

Ms. CAMMETT. But it is a good point. If I can also add, when the 

athlete is traveling and there is a medical professional, they fill out 

any prescription information that they are taking at the time when 

they go, and the doctor has that information. The doctor does fill 

out if anything was prescribed. We also have medical staff at our 

nationals, and that is always detailed in a report. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, since it is just the two of us and the Chairman is coming back, we could keep on. Did you have any additional 

question? 

35 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. I do. Thank you. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

I have heard from a couple of you. And maybe this is to all of 

you right now, just a, Yes, question. Do you all agree that we 

should be adequately funding the U.S. Center for SafeSport to address education, investigation, and adjudication? And, Mr. Andrews, if you can just say, yes or no. Yes? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

Ms. CAMMETT. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

And one of the recommendations, which you, Ms. Cammett, 

talked about was needing a national data base of banned people. 

Would you all agree that that is something that is necessary? 

Starting with Mr. Andrews, yes or no. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

Ms. CAMMETT. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. I am going to ask Mr. Hinchey, I do not 

want to put you on the spot, but I know we talked about this, and 

I agree we need to do something. What should we know about, or 

what should be addressed when we are talking about banning people? What have you learned? Is there anything that you have 

learned from that that we need to take into consideration? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I think right now for us with the change as 

it relates to initial reporting and adjudication of the Center for 

SafeSport, is our responses, unfortunately, are not as fast as they 

were when we were first handling it. So it goes back to your question as it relates to funding. Funding is significant, but at the same 

time, we need to hire the right amount of people that can be responsive to the needs of our athletes. Right now, we are finding the 

feedback for us, and what we are learning is that we are not getting to these as fast as we need to. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Let me also just put this out there. I 

hope this is not the case, but I hope you are not waiting for Congress to act to stand this up before we make the necessary changes 

to protect our athletes. Please tell me that you are still going to 

move forward to change that culture, to protect our athletes, to do 

what is necessary within your organizations, no matter what happens here. Is that correct? And can I start with Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, absolutely. 

Ms. CAMMETT. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, and just further, we need to absolutely have 

a culture of reporting that is safe for everyone. 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And then you talked a little bit about a 

campaign. I know we have talked to others, but tell me what kind 

of campaign are we talking about that would be necessary, Ms. 

Cammett? 

Ms. CAMMETT. So in this case, we are also working on educational materials that are age-adequate and all. We are waiting 

for the USOC to develop that. 

36 

We have a campaign called Your Voice. Part of the problem when 

there is abuse, especially with young children, they do not know 

how to express that. They do not know what to say. I do not have 

any background in this, but my observation and experience is that 

there is a lot involved with being afraid to talk to someone about 

it. So this campaign is really to say you have a voice, and you need 

to express it and let people know when there is something not right 

either with you or if you observe it. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And is that a campaign that you are 

taking on through your organization, or you are hoping that U.S. 

SafeSport will take this on? 

Ms. CAMMETT. It is something that U.S. Figure Skating has done 

already. We have a T-shirt back here too. 

Senator Cortez Masto: OK. Thank you. I see it. Your Voice is 

Powerful. That is great. Thank you. 

Let me ask the dynamic now between the NGBs and the U.S. 

Olympic Committee. What is it that we need to know that is happening within that relationship? In other words, are they dictating, 

mandating certain things that can or should be done with the 

NGBs to address this culture? Is there more work that needs to be 

done? Is the interaction between the two working how it should? 

And I will leave that open to the Committee. Can you please address that for me? 

Mr. ANDREWS. I think yes, they are. They are mandating certain 

elements, especially with regard to our adherence to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. But ultimately it comes down to the NGB first 

to take the action to protect their own athletes, listen to their own 

athletes, and put into place actions that specifically protect athletes 

within that sport, and that is what we have done. 

Ms. CAMMETT. Well, I will just speak quickly that they are developing. It is continuing. It is evolving, and meanwhile we are also 

going ahead and doing it. But we do feel that it is important that 

if the USOC would have a collective program, then all the NGBs 

can benefit from it and have the same message and information 

getting out to all NGBs. 

Mr. HINCHEY. It is absolutely a priority that is clear to them 

today and has been communicated to us. 

Having said that, and I have said this previously, we look at this 

as our problem. Although we have invested in a program that we 

think has been very strong over the past 8 years, it absolutely 

needs to get better for the survivors and the abuse that has occurred in swimming. I do not think we can rely upon anybody else. 

We owe this to our athletes. Therefore, I see this as our number 

one priority and for us to continue to be a priority, and if the 

USOC can help, we are willing to do that. We are willing to share 

and learn. But we feel like this is on us. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Anything to add, Mr. Steele? 

Mr. STEELE. Just that that partnership has been crucial for our 

organization. We are smaller and so the resources that they have 

been able to offer up as far as helping us with guidance on the implementation, changes. And to circle back about the mental health 

question that was asked, that is something that is important to us. 

It does not come up that often, but when it does, you really need 

to have a resource for an athlete. Just recently it was announced 

37 

to all of us that the USOC is going to be adding this as a resource 

for our athletes, and we were very excited to hear that. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

I am going to ask one more question before I go to Senator Hassan. 

Senator Cortez Masto mentioned the banned list, and you all 

seemed to be very much in support of that. I saw on the coaching 

and I know it could be something other than a coach, a physical 

therapist or something like that. Is that envisioned to be a public 

document? Yes, yes? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. 

Senator CAPITO. And those names are gathered. How would you 

as an organization be forwarding these names to the Olympic Committee? Do they do an investigation, or how is that going to work? 

Does anybody know? Have they figured that out yet? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Not to my knowledge. Our banned list is public. 

We are responsible for that. Now that the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport provides that adjudication, they would give us notice. We 

would take care of that list, and we would also contact the club. 

Senator CAPITO. So you all formulate your own list and then that 

becomes part of the U.S. Olympic Committee? That is the U.S. 

Olympic Committee list unless they have a list of their own they 

add on, which I guess is possible? 

I am just curious to know. How many individuals are on the 

banned list for U.S. Swimming? 

Mr. HINCHEY. 163. 

Senator CAPITO. Wow. That is a lot. 

And how is that information disseminated to all of your member 

clubs and member organizations? 

Mr. HINCHEY. It is public on our website, and on the individual 

occasion, someone is banned, we then communicate to that club. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator Hassan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much, Senator Capito. 

And good afternoon to all of you, and thank you for tolerating our 

in and out as we go vote. 

I do want to thank, not only the witnesses for being here, but for 

all of the survivors who are here today as well, we are grateful for 

your voices and for your strength. And we are working to make 

sure that, obviously, the personal safety and autonomy of athletes 

is just always paramount. So, again, I appreciate your willingness 

to be here. 

I wanted everybody on the panel to have a chance to answer a 

question that I think U.S. Swimming answered earlier. But as we 

have heard here today, Congress passed the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act. The goal 

of the legislation is to protect athletes, facilitate reporting of suspected or alleged incidence of abuse, and ensure that a robust, impartial, and independent system exists to do just that. 

38 

Obviously, an important part of this process is speaking with and 

really listening to survivors of sexual abuse and misconduct. And 

I think, Mr. Hinchey, you indicated that U.S. Swimming has. But 

for the other witnesses here, have your organizations met with survivors? Have you been talking with them to get their input about 

how to bring about lasting change? And why do we not start with 

you, Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, we have both those who have suffered within 

our sport and those coming to our sport having previously suffered. 

We have put into place specific recommendations based off their 

feedback. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Cammett. 

Ms. CAMMETT. Yes, we also have, and we have incorporated information from them to make our training and education programs 

stronger. 

Senator HASSAN. And Mr. Steele? 

Mr. STEELE. Survivors, no, but we did have the SafeSport individuals come and speak with the athletes to make sure that they 

were aware of the policies and available resources. 

Senator HASSAN. I would suggest that, as you have heard from 

your colleagues, it is a very important thing to do. And obviously, 

every situation is different, and survivors will make their own 

judgments about when and how they want to engage. But I think 

it is incredibly important that we do that as part of this process 

and make sure their voices are heard. So I hope very much you will 

consider it. 

Mr. Hinchey, I wanted to go back to USA Swimming a little bit. 

When we talk about sexual abuse in athletes, we typically think of 

the horrible abuses committed in USA Gymnastics at the hands of 

Larry Nassar, who has finally been brought to justice. But as you 

have acknowledged, USA Swimming has a particularly bad record 

as well. 

Among the allegations of USA Swimming is the failure to complete background checks for coaches which resulted in dozens of 

coaches being able to commit sexual abuse and engage in misconduct against their swimmers. In 2010, ABC News revealed that 

36 coaches were banned for life by USA Swimming because of sexual misconduct. In a July 2018 report, NPR revealed that the 

banned list has grown, and it reported 150. You just said 163. 

It has also been reported that USA Swimming knew about sexual 

misconduct from its coaches but did nothing to protect its athletes. 

And as recently as last February, the Orange County Register reported that top USA Swimming officials covered up hundreds of 

sexual abuse cases spanning decades. 

This is in so many ways falling short of how we expect athletes 

in the United States of America to be treated. 

One of the concerns I have is that it appears that in some of the 

cases where coaches were not banned, it was because USA Swimming believed the coaches’ contention that the relationship was 

consensual. And I just want to say it is not possible to have a truly 

consensual relationship given the power dynamics and the fact that 

coaches literally hold the key to an athlete’s Olympic dream and 

their future. 

39 

So I understand that USA Swimming now bans so-called consensual relationships. But given that, will you commit to revisiting the 

previous complaints of athletes who said they were sexually abused 

in a relationship the coach claims was consensual? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Absolutely. This is my top priority since I have 

been at USA Swimming. We will continue to do that. There is nothing more important than the safety of our athletes. At the same 

time, we will also need to be working in conjunction with any new 

complaints because those will go to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

So again, we will need to be working together in order for us to 

make that happen. But I am certainly more than welcome to meet 

with any survivor. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. The request is really for a commitment to revisit those cases where consideration of a coach’s position 

that it was consensual kept the coach from being banned. So I 

would look forward to continuing to hear more about that. 

I see that the Chair and Ranking Member are back. I just wanted to close. 

Mr. Andrews, I appreciated your saying that it is possible to win 

and still keep athletes safe. And obviously, the two are not mutually exclusive, but obviously, an athlete’s autonomy and safety 

comes first. And I think it is really important in this day and age 

that we acknowledge we can do both. Thank you very much. 

Senator MORAN [presiding]. Senator Hassan, thank you very 

much. 

Let me ask a couple of questions and then we will turn to the 

Ranking Member. 

One of the things I am told I should be concerned about is with 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport. It is beginning to be up and running 

in a sense, but there is a slowness in the response? I would like 

to know whether that is true and what your experience has been. 

It is important for victims, for survivors to have the reality, as well 

as the impression, that they are being listened to. And that is one 

of the things we have heard from those survivors in numerous conversations. It was as if no one cared. So if we are going to create 

a culture in which athletes feel comfortable in reporting, in this 

case to the U.S. Center for SafeSport, they need to know there is 

a prompt and real interest in their wellbeing, that their story can 

be told and actions will follow. 

What is the experience that you have had in the timeliness of the 

U.S. Center for SafeSport responding to your athletes, or would you 

not know that because only the athletes know that? Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. ANDREWS. There are some for which we would not know because the report is made directly to the center, but I would say 

that your comments are accurate. The center has been overwhelmed with a volume of investigations it has been required to 

carry out and, as a result, does require more support from all of 

us financially and non-financially to both improve its processes and 

critically its timelines. In the case of emotional or physical abuse 

complaints, they are still dealt with at the national governing body 

level and are certainly able to be dealt with more quickly because 

simply we are less overwhelmed than the center is at this time. 

Senator MORAN. Ms. Cammett, you were ready to speak. My 

question would be is that the experience, or does anyone have any 

40 

specifics which they can provide today for our hearing record? Ms. 

Cammett? 

Ms. CAMMETT. We do not have specifics. I mean, similar to Mr. 

Andrews with weightlifting, we sometimes make the complaint for 

someone or we could tell something is going on because we have 

been asked if someone is a member. But bottom line, it does take 

a while, and again, I think it is because they are overwhelmed. 

Senator MORAN. Anyone else? 

Mr. HINCHEY. As recent as last week at our United States Aquatic Convention in Jacksonville, I sat in our SafeSport Committee 

meeting and we heard loud and clear that the responsiveness is 

taking too long. They are concerned because they are not getting 

any calls back regardless of what the complaint is. 

Senator MORAN. That is a useful thing to know. A number of you 

have testified about additional taxpayer resources. You indicate 

that they are overwhelmed. I understand there is a volume in complaints, but overwhelmed because of process and procedure or overwhelmed because there are just not enough people to do the work? 

Or both? 

Mr. ANDREWS. I would say there is a degree of both. They are 

still new. They are still learning. And if you look at the history of 

the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, now recognized as the gold standard 

around the world, they suffered from similar issues at the start of 

their life. 

We have a specific issue you asked for, Senator Moran. We had 

a sexual harassment of a child complaint, which we heard nothing 

for several months from the center, resulting in us taking a last 

minute interim measure against that individual as a national governing body. 

But I do believe it is both of the items that you said. It is both 

the need to employ even more investigators to ensure that the 

timeline is reduced and also additional expertise to continue to improve their processes as they become a more mature organization. 

Senator MORAN. One of the processes that we could perhaps do 

is just the acknowledgement of the complaint of something being 

filed so that, again, there is knowledge that someone is paying attention. 

Let me ask this question. A number of you indicated, in particular, Mr. Steele, the importance of financial support from the 

USOC. Describe to me, all four of you have different NGB resources, different magnitude of your programs. What is it that the 

U.S. Olympic Committee does for you financially? By that, I in part 

mean, what kind of dollars are we talking about? 

Mr. STEELE. It depends on the year of the quad because the percentage does change. But I would say on average probably 65, 

sometimes up to 70 percent of the total revenue that comes in is 

from the USOC. And we are talking about roughly $2 million a 

year. 

Senator MORAN. And are those numbers that you indicated, 

change from year to year, but have they changed as a result of the 

new attention, focus on sexual abuse? You are talking about money 

that is utilized across the board, not just related to this issue. This 

$2 million is money that supports your governing body broadly? 

41 

Mr. STEELE. It is very specific to athlete programming. That is 

the only thing it is used for. 

Senator MORAN. What does that mean? 

Mr. STEELE. That means coaches, taking care of the team, traveling around the world, fielding teams, buying equipment. It has to 

be related to a sports program for the athletes. 

Senator MORAN. And has that increased as a result of an effort 

by the USOC to deal with the issue that is the topic of this hearing? 

Mr. STEELE. I do not believe so. 

Senator MORAN. Anyone else? 

Mr. HINCHEY. I would echo Darrin’s statement. We get about 15 

percent, and it is direct athlete funding to our national team athletes so they have a chance to live and compete at the highest levels. 

Ms. CAMMETT. It is the same. It is not for this initiative. 

Mr. ANDREWS. We are at 2.7 percent, and again, it has not increased due to this initiative. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Senator Blumenthal is recognized. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. I have another meeting, so I 

am going to have to depart fairly soon, but I want to ask a few 

questions here. 

First of all, do any of you use what are called flagged lists? There 

was an AP report in 2010 that USA Swimming has a secret, in 

quotes, flagged list in addition to the public banned list. Do any of 

your organizations use a flagged list in addition to the banned list? 

Mr. HINCHEY. We do not call it a flagged list. For those that have 

a criminal charge that we get to know about, then we certainly 

would flag their entry to membership, request for membership, and 

we would deny that membership at headquarters. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Do others have the same practice? 

Ms. CAMMETT. No, we do not have that practice. And then also, 

we do the background checks on all coaches. It is required, and 

people that are in a position of power would have incidents flagged 

there too. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So your practice is, Mr. Hinchey, that you 

use the flagged list relating to charges but a ban as to convictions. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Could you restate your question? Sorry. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I am sorry? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Could you repeat your question? Sorry. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You use the flagged list to include individuals who have been charged, but not convicted. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So if they are currently not a member of our organization and they have a criminal charge, then we will denote that 

so that if there is a request for membership, we can deny that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And you ban individuals who are convicted. Is that the distinction? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Anyone that has been a member first that goes 

through the process of a hearing or gets convicted, then we would 

ban them at that point. 

42 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Have you taken action against Norm 

Havercroft, one of the individuals who sexually abused Jancy 

Thompson, who is in the audience today? 

Mr. HINCHEY. I am not familiar with that case prior to my arrival at the USA Swimming, but I know that he is not a member 

of USA Swimming. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Could you verify whether he has been 

banned? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What about Paul Bergen? He is a swimming coach who is not banned apparently but believed to be on the 

flagged list and who allegedly sexually abused Olympic swimmer 

Deena Deardruff beginning when she was 11 years old. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I am not familiar with that case. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Could you get back to me about this? 

Mr. Steele, my office has been told that a female athlete on the 

USA Bobsled & Skeleton team was exposed to the sexually explicit 

content of a male coach’s photographs or other material. Subsequently, other athletes were exposed too. Could you tell me whether you were informed by the United States Olympic Committee 

AAC representative of these sexually explicit content incidents? 

Mr. STEELE. I was not informed by the USOC about this, but I 

did hear about this. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And what were you told? 

Mr. STEELE. I was told basically what you just said occurred. 

And so immediately I started asking questions to find out what 

happened. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Was disciplinary action taken? 

Mr. STEELE. To the extent of a warning. It was a warning about 

procedure. The situation was not as it had first been described. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. There was more than one person is my 

understanding. 

Mr. STEELE. Yes, because multiple athletes had the electronic device that had access to those images. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So the athlete complaint procedures 

worked or not? 

Mr. STEELE. Yes, they worked. It was dealt with. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. No action was taken. 

Mr. STEELE. No, because of the circumstances. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I do not have time to completely explore 

all the details, but I would appreciate a written account. 

Mr. STEELE. I will provide that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Would anyone here oppose establishing an Inspector General 

within the U.S. Olympic Committee? 

Mr. ANDREWS. No. I would encourage it. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, let me ask the question a different 

way. Would you in fact encourage it? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Absolutely. 

Ms. CAMMETT. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. 

43 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you encourage establishing an athlete advocate within the U.S. Olympic Committee? All of you agree? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And would you voluntarily commit to increasing athlete representation to a majority on your boards and 

committees to ensure their voices and concerns are heard? 

Mr. ANDREWS. I would be happy to do that. 

Ms. CAMMETT. I think we would want to research so that it is 

not the majority. We could increase the minority. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, it is 20 percent now. I am asking 

that you commit to increasing it to a majority. 

Ms. CAMMETT. We would not be able to do that at this time, a 

majority. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Why? 

Ms. CAMMETT. I think part of what you have to look at—and this 

is some of my opinion, but also the learning and life experiences 

that come with developing from a young person to an adult. And 

we have many people that skated at a high level that are involved 

in that administration, but they have timed out for the 10-year 

maximum. And I think you need a good balance. You need that life 

experience, the knowledge that comes from—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, how about 50 percent? 

Ms. CAMMETT. We can explore that, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would like to hear back from you about 

that. 

Ms. CAMMETT. OK. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Others? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Our board is made up of a house of delegates 

throughout the entire organization, the volunteer organizations. 

We need to work with those bylaws to do so, but we would be in 

favor in having more athletes. 

Mr. STEELE. I would not be in favor of that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Why? 

Mr. STEELE. Well, because it comes down to the competence of 

the board. We certainly want the athletes’ voice. That is crucial but 

if athletes have not completed education. Our board members have 

to be successful in some other aspect of life, hopefully some specialty that we can use as almost a consulting situation. 

One of the issues that we do see with competing athletes that are 

on the board is the board has to look at long-term strategy for the 

organization. A competing athlete is looking at four-year increments, and it is difficult to think about long-term strategy when 

you are actually in the midst of competition. So the voice is important, but to the extent that they would be dictating the direction 

of the organization when they have got short-term strategies and 

not life experience—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, let me make a suggestion. If you increase the age eligibility for athletes, you could include older athletes and maybe that would satisfy the concern that you have 

raised. 

I know this conversation is going to continue. I am going to be 

submitting a number of additional questions in writing, and I appreciate your being here today. And again, my thanks to the surVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
44 

vivors who have been here and whose ideas and inspiration are 

very, very important, in fact, the most important factor. I hope to 

continue this conversation. And again, my thanks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much. We 

will continue to work to see that we get a good result from this investigation and our series of hearings. 

I do have a few more questions before we conclude. 

Well, first of all, Senator Blumenthal raised the topic of lists, 

banned lists. Certainly who is on that list is important and how it 

is used within the NGB and within the Olympic community. But 

it seems to me one of the most difficult challenges we face is the 

club level. How we get that information to them, and whether or 

not they utilize that information in a way that protects the athletes. And at least in conversations that I have had, my understanding is that there are coaches and other professionals who are 

on the list, on a banned list, but still employed at the club level. 

Help me understand this problem, if it exists, and what a potential 

solution would look like? 

Mr. Andrews, we may have had a conversation like this. It seems 

to me we did. 

Mr. ANDREWS. We did. We spoke briefly on this subject. 

That problem does exist. There is a number of ways in which it 

exists. There is a responsibility of the NGB, and my colleagues and 

I here have outlined some of the ways in which we inform local 

level participants and local level clubs of those bans. For example, 

ourselves—each time we sanction an event, we send that banned 

list directly to that sanctioning individual in order to ensure it is 

enforced. That is just one example. 

I think the biggest issue is the fact at the club level, physically 

we are not in all these cities ourselves. Physically we are not there 

to investigate and to enforce these bans. And on occasion, we may 

share that building, in our case as an indoor sport, with more than 

one sport. In our case it could be crossfit. It could be gymnastics. 

It could be taekwondo, wrestling, or many non-Olympic sports. And 

there is an issue about whether they are banned from not just our 

sport but others. 

That carries with the SafeSport Center where a ban is recognized 

across the Olympic movement. Occasionally there is an issue where 

that is not recognized in other sports. 

We have been fortunate enough to work with two key non-Olympic sports with whom we have a close relationship to recognize 

those bans, which has helped in that. But there remain issues to 

be worked on on the local level to ensure that an individual banned 

in one sport cannot participate in youth sport in either another organization that sanctions that sport or in another sport. 

Senator MORAN. Others? 

Mr. HINCHEY. I am currently not aware of any of our banned 

coaches that are still employed at a club. 

Senator MORAN. What is your tool to make sure that is true or 

remains true? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Again, we certainly obviously have this list up 

publicly on our website, but once a coach is banned, we do contact 

the club directly. 

45 

Senator MORAN. And your impression, your testimony is that 

then clubs honor that ban and would not hire or would then discharge one of those individuals? 

Mr. HINCHEY. In order for them to be a head coach or a coach 

at one of these clubs, they have to be a member of USA Swimming. 

So once they are banned from membership, that club is prohibited 

from hiring them. 

Senator MORAN. And the consequence to the club if they do not 

follow the ban that has to do with what? What is the result? 

Mr. HINCHEY. I do not have the exact answer to that, so I would 

like to get back to you. 

Having said that, my speculation would be that we have the ability to throw them out as members of USA Swimming. 

Senator MORAN. One of the questions that was suggested to me 

by my staff is related to this topic, and part of that question is if 

the club relinquishes or has their sponsorship removed, can they 

still operate without further repercussions? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Not to my knowledge in USA Swimming. I am not 

sure if they can join a different swimming organization across the 

country, but certainly not USA Swimming. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Steele or Ms. Cammett? 

Ms. CAMMETT. We would have a similar process where they 

would be sanctioned from our official grievance process and would 

not be able to hold any events, U.S. Figure Skating events. 

Mr. STEELE. We do not really have clubs that relate to this. 

Senator MORAN. In talking about the banned employee coach/ 

trainer list, tell me how your NGB maintains that list, and how 

does it interact with the list at the Center for U.S. SafeSport? 

Mr. ANDREWS. In our case, we display it in our website and within e-mails to our membership. That covers not just SafeSport but 

also Anti-Doping and ethical violations, and it has a direct link to 

the center as well to view bans in other sports. 

Ms. CAMMETT. And we are similar. We have it on display on our 

website, and we have actually details of what rules were violated. 

And then we do have a connection to SafeSport to be able to look 

at the list there. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Similar. We display it publicly and it is connected 

to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Mr. STEELE. In the event that we get a banned individual, we 

will do the same. 

Senator MORAN. Tell me about any efforts to implement complete 

background checks. What is going on in your world in that regard? 

Mr. HINCHEY. From the U.S. swimming perspective, we do 

monthly recurring background checks on all 50,000 non-athlete 

members. So that is roughly 600,000 checks a year. 

Ms. CAMMETT. And then all our professionals, those that each 

skating at our rinks and all—they undergo a yearly background 

check, and then also anyone that is in a position of authority, 

which could be our board, the staff at U.S. Figure Skating, our 

team leaders, our medical, our officials. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Very similar. We take a yearly recurring background check. You must have that background check before contact 

with athletes in our case, and that goes up to the board, the staff, 

46 

the Committees, but also technical officials, as Ms. Cammett has 

orated. 

Mr. STEELE. All new hires go through the background check and 

then on an annual basis, all employees. 

Senator MORAN. In response to my questions, we have talked 

about the banned list and we have talked about background 

checks. How recent a development is those procedures in relationship to the Larry Nassar case? Are these things that have transpired since then? 

Mr. ANDREWS. In our case, no. We have had wide background 

checks—and I apologize since I was not here at the time—since either 2010 or 2011. We did expand them to include board members, 

committee members, staff, and other people in 2017. But at the 

sports medicine and coach level, they have been mandatory since 

that time. 

Ms. CAMMETT. And since 2008, we have required the professionals to have a background check, and just recently, we have expanded it to, as Mr. Andrews mentioned as well, the board, the 

staff, and other officials. 

Mr. HINCHEY. This has all been in place at USA Swimming. 

SafeSport started in 2010, and then after a Victor Vieth independent report, many of these took place starting from 2014. 

Mr. STEELE. And we introduced just the annual recurring background checks as it related to the implementation of SafeSport. 

Senator MORAN. How frequently does a background check result 

in the termination of an employee or a member of your board? 

Mr. STEELE. It has not happened to us yet. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I do not have the information, but I can get it for 

you, Senator. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Ms. CAMMETT. I do not believe we have had any terminated, but 

I will get that information for you. 

Mr. ANDREWS. We have had one that failed a background check 

prior to employment who is no longer employed. 

Senator MORAN. I think this may be my final question. I will see 

if there are suggestions from staff of something we need to cover 

before we conclude the hearing. But I have always made it a practice of asking the witnesses in front of our subcommittee if they 

have anything they want to relay to us that has not been asked or 

something they would like to further explain or correct, anything 

you want to make sure that we hear or that is included in the 

Committee’s record. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I would certainly echo the statements I think that 

Mr. Andrews discussed about is there an opportunity for us, as we 

gather everyone together, to make sure that our athletes are safe. 

Again, Congress to the national governing bodies, the USOC, the 

U.S. Center for SafeSport, is there an opportunity to look at a 

model like you saw that has made a real difference, and I know it 

took some years to get organized. And I can tell you we use 

USADA. They have been a fantastic, best-in-class organization for 

us to utilize for another important matter, which is anti-doping. So 

if there is a chance for us to work along those lines, I think that 

would be very useful. 

47 

Mr. ANDREWS. I would just like to add and echo Mr. Hinchey’s 

comments, but additionally the factor of looking at the way that 

law enforcement works with the particular challenges that come 

with Olympic sport. We compete all over the world. Incidents may 

happen, both interstate but also internationally. And it is important that law enforcement, as well as the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport, is able to respond to that. 

I think proactive measures—none of us in this room —we can 

never promise that sexual abuse will never happen again. It is impossible to promise that. What is critical is how we respond, how 

we respond to our athletes and how we respond to an individual 

coming forward with a report, and I think not only how we respond 

to that from an investigation standpoint but how we respond to 

that for the care of the athlete, namely what has already been 

mentioned by Senator Capito around mental health and counseling. 

Rather than sport psychology, counseling for those athletes is a 

very vital service that many NGBs and the U.S. Olympic Committee are now looking to implement. 

Senator MORAN. Is it your belief that if an athlete reported to 

someone in authority, a coach, a trainer, a member of your board, 

to you, are you with a great deal of certainty convinced that it 

would result in further investigation and not be treated the way 

that the reports of victims or survivors had in regard to Dr. 

Nassar? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, but I believe it is that we have to create a 

culture where they are willing to come forward to one, if not more 

than one, person within each of those organizations and take steps 

to ensure that more than one person is available to that individual. 

Senator MORAN. Are you comfortable that that would be the 

truth in your case, Ms. Cammett? 

Ms. CAMMETT. Yes. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Hinchey? 

Mr. HINCHEY. I would certainly speak yes to myself and members of—I would like to think most of the members of our board. 

Clearly having said that, it has not worked with coaches, clearly. 

So the center has to work. We need to have a culture of reporting. 

We need to find a place that people feel comfortable, and it does 

not have to be their coach. It needs to be an independent opportunity where they feel safe. 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. 

Senator MORAN. Has your world changed since the Nassar allegations and conviction? 

Ms. CAMMETT. Yes, it has. I mean, I think a lot of it is the 

awareness that this has brought and the ability to talk about it. 

You know, when I was young, it is not something you would talk 

about, and now the climate has changed and we have the ability 

to educate and let people know that they can come forward. 

Mr. HINCHEY. It has changed for the better. We need to get on 

this. 

Senator MORAN. I have said this in other hearings, but it is the 

most discouraging thing to me. I have always said I do not think 

I know anyone that if someone brought them an allegation, a report of sexual abuse who would not do something with that, even 

48 

if they did not know the victim. And I am still trying to figure out 

how that occurred in so many instances in the Olympic community. 

I believe we are done with this hearing. I appreciate the testimony that you have provided today and the response to our questions. A number of committee members asked for a written response, and we will pursue that. 

I appreciate what was said about the courage, the awareness, the 

indication that there is a different awareness in today’s world. That 

is only a result of the individuals in this room who are survivors 

who have been willing to report. And we have met a lot of those 

young men and women over the last 10 months. And I again appreciate their willingness to do what they did in order to protect others. 

I think the most compelling question that I have heard in my 

conversations and in these hearings is the question of why was 

there more than one, and that to me is the goal that we have in 

trying to change the culture, as you describe it, but also making 

certain that the laws that we create are appropriate and useful 

that prevent this behavior. 

This hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During the 

time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. 

Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written 

answers to the Committee. 

I conclude the hearing by once again thanking the witnesses for 

their appearance today, and I appreciate the cooperation of all my 

Committee members in today’s hearing. And the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MCNALLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, USA TAEKWONDO

Chairman Thune, Subcommittee Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, 

Members of the Committee. My name is Stephen McNally. I am the Executive Director of USA Taekwondo, a member of the United States Olympic Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to the Committee. 

It has been exactly a year since I was appointed as the new leader of USA 

Taekwondo, and I think it’s fair to say that it has been perhaps the organization’s 

toughest year since its incorporation in 2004. While we have faced fierce criticism, 

we have tried to be forthcoming, cooperative, and as transparent as possible regarding ongoing investigations and legal proceedings into historical allegations of abuse 

involving our team members. 

Today’s testimony will outline the steps we have taken over the past twelve 

months, and the steps we intend to take in the near future. We will also propose 

solutions in areas where we think we need help from, and collaboration with outside 

bodies if we are to be successful in this endeavor to protect the Nation’s amateur 

athletes from the devastating effects of abuse at the hands of their coaches and 

peers. 

I was fortunate that by the time of my appointment the U.S. Center for SafeSport 

was already in existence, and I am grateful to the U.S. Olympic Committee and the 

U.S. Senate for their work in making that happen. Where investigations are concerned, USA Taekwondo defers to the Center for SafeSport’s expertise and exclusive 

jurisdiction. If we receive information regarding an allegation involving potential 

sexual misconduct, we do the following: 

(1) Report the allegation to the U.S. Center for SafeSport for response and resolution. 

(2) If there is an allegation of criminal activity, report to the relevant law enforcement agencies. 

(3) If the alleged actions could place our community in danger we immediately 

issue an interim suspension without presumption of guilt, barring any further 

participation by the accused in USA Taekwondo events or activities until such 

time as the U.S. Center for SafeSport concludes its work. 

We follow this process in every case regardless of the amount of evidence—reporting everything from a complete, detailed and documented statement to the most 

general of third party reports—to the Center. 

USA Taekwondo is also working hard to educate and empower our community 

through our ‘‘#notinmysport’’ initiative, which continues to build momentum. Our 

hope is to see it evolve into an independent non-profit organization of its own in 

the near future and be embraced by other NGBs and even other sporting organizations. Our partnership with the Fighting Spirit Safety group provides personal empowerment, safety information and training to athletes to help them build confidence and awareness of situations that could become dangerous—now mandatory 

training for all National Team members. Shortly we will create a new position of 

Head of Athlete Safety and take another important step forward. The position will 

be filled by a high-quality individual with a reputation for her no-nonsense attitude 

and passion for the wellbeing of athletes of all ages. 

We have increased the number of people who must undergo SafeSport training 

in order to be eligible to even attend our events, let alone participate, and we will 

shortly begin to make easily available the details of those coaches who have passed 

a background check and completed the SafeSport training through our CoachSafe 

initiative. This will be accompanied by a wide-ranging awareness campaign within 

taekwondo designed to educate parents on the importance of making sure that the 

coaches in their children’s school are trained and cleared to coach. Although USA 

Taekwondo has no authority over non-member coaches, our hope is that this new 

50 

program will nevertheless increase the number of SafeSport-trained coaches who 

have had their backgrounds checked. 

These initiatives should send a clear message to our community—misconduct will 

simply not be tolerated within USA Taekwondo, and perpetrators will be removed 

without hesitation. For an NGB of our size these investments of time and resources 

demonstrate our strong commitment to community safety. 

While I am proud of the work the team at USA Taekwondo is undertaking in the 

area of athlete protection, our authority is limited to the removal of membership 

privileges within our own organization. I submit to you that where our authority 

ends is where the Committee can have the greatest impact. 

Taekwondo is a community of small business owners, and with just 15,000 members USA Taekwondo has a sphere of influence that affects only a small percentage 

of the taekwondo practitioners in the United States. 

In prior testimony to Congress USA Taekwondo called for consideration of a National Amateur Athletic Coach licensing program and repeats that call again in this 

testimony to the Senate. If we are serious about protecting all athletes there must 

be an effective sanction to deter and punish sexual predators. As we are learning, 

the standard of proof required to remove an individual’s right to membership is significantly lower (although still too high) than it is for a criminal prosecution. There 

is nothing to prevent someone who has had their USA Taekwondo membership removed because of sexual misconduct from going on to work with children whose parents may be completely unaware of their history. 

If licensing or certification was required for all amateur athletic coaches and administrators, anyone who was the subject of a license revocation or suspension 

would have a record that could make them ineligible to work with amateur athletes 

in any sport. This is a meaningful consequence. Potential loss of livelihood can and 

would be a powerful deterrent. 

Via licensing fees, this system could also provide vital financial resources and accompanying independence for the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Subjecting a business to any level of regulation is not to be undertaken lightly. 

However, the Nation abounds with professions that require practitioners to be licensed. Governments have already recognized the vital importance of child welfare 

where licensing or certifying daycare providers, physical education teachers, and 

school social workers is concerned. Coaches should be no different. Even a funeral 

director requires a license to care for the dead. Surely the dead are not more important than children. 

USA Taekwondo would very much like to be involved in the discussions around 

such a system. To be clear, we are not asking for any additional authority or opportunities to generate revenue. We envision a Federal effort to create a model system 

of licensing that could be adopted by states. With adequate information-sharing 

with the Center for SafeSport and other NGBs like USA Taekwondo, a better network of protection for athletes can emerge. 

While it is unlikely that any solution will be perfect, we believe such a system 

would be a truly effective response to the problem of sexual abuse of athletes. Licensing is a proven method that provides transparency, accountability, and community protection. We have reached a point in our national discussion about sexual 

abuse where we have to do more than express outrage and fire everyone who is in 

a leadership position. 

We would welcome the opportunity to answer any further questions for the record, 

and again thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this written testimony. 

Olympians Rising—September 19, 2018 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS: REFORMING THE U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE TO

ENSURE HEALTH AND LIVELIHOOD OF ATHLETES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OlympiansRising is a non-profit organization founded by August Wolf, OLY. Our 

mission is to reform the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), the coordinating 

body for all Olympic sports in the U.S., to ensure that the health and livelihood of 

athletes are its top priority. Several Olympians actively support our work and mission including: Bode Miller, six-time Olympic Medalist in skiing; Caroline Lind, twotime Olympic Gold Medalist in rowing, 2008 and 2012; Kayla Harrison, two-time 

Olympic Gold Medalist in Judo, 2012-2016; and Jimmy Pedro, two-time Olympic 

Medalist in Judo, 1996 and 2004. 

51 

1See: ‘‘Olympic Athletes Patch Together Elite Health Coverage,’’ Bloomberg Law, February 9, 

2018, here 2 ‘‘United States Olympic Committee: Elite Athlete Health Insurance Program and The Affordable Care Act—5/17/2015’’ at Slide 4, https://assets.usarugby.org/docs/usoc/EAHI-UpdatePam-Sawyer.pdf 3See: https://goducks.com/news/2018/8/2/track-and-field-eugene-to-host-2020-us-olympicteam-trials.aspx?path=track 4http://www.usashooting.org/library/Policies_and_Procedures/Updates_12013/Direct_Athlete_Support_DAS_Paralympic-_Stipends_EAHI_Medal_Incentives_01-30-13.pdf 5https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.americancanoe.org/resource/resmgr/competition-documents/ 

ACA_2018_Athlete_Criteria_Li.pdf 6http://www.usatf.org/usatf/files/1b/1b707878-346d-4aaa-aac3-3268d77210cb.pdf 

7http://www.usrowing.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-2018-EAHI-Criteria-2.pdf 

In the wake of revelations about the sexual abuse of Olympic athletes, most notably by former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar, it is essential to examine 

ways to reform the governance of Olympic sports, beginning with the USOC. Specifically, the lack of an external reviewing authority; insufficient athlete representation; 

and lax reporting requirements, all mean that the interests of athletes are not put 

first. This lack of accountability impacts athletes in all Olympic sports and directly 

affects their health, funding, and success. 

As a first step in addressing these underlying issues, we offer the following set 

of recommendations. As is the case with how regulators have tackled sexual assault 

in the military, we believe the culture of sexual abuse illustrates larger systemic 

problems within the organization. While there are additional issues not addressed 

here, we nonetheless believe these reforms would significantly improve athletes’ 

lives and move to a system that prioritizes the interests of athletes. Our recommendations cover the following categories and are presented in an Issue:Solution 

format to maximize clarity: 

I. Athlete Protection, Representation, and Funding 

II. Corporate Governance of the USOC 

III. Giving SafeSport the Necessary Tools to be Effective 

Our recommendations related to sexual assault are derived in part from the June 

2014 report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (‘‘the 

Military Panel’’), the Federal advisory committee within the Department of Defense 

(DoD) commissioned by Congress. Borrowing from the Military Panel’s recommendations, we suggest the creation of a Special Victim Counsel program that would provide specially-trained legal advocates for athletes throughout the process of filing 

and litigating a claim. We also make recommendations for oversight of USOC based 

on the internal structure of executive agencies. Specifically, we recommend adopting 

term limits for members of the Board of directors and the creation of an Office of 

Inspector General with investigative and subpoena powers to augment board oversight. Additionally, we offer solutions to increase direct funding to athletes, ensuring 

they are treated equitably and able to pursue their dreams. 

OlympiansRising hopes to serve as a resource to Federal officials and to provide 

the perspective of athletes on these crucial topics. We urge Congress to continue 

holding hearings to review these findings and explore ways to improve USOC operations. 

OLYMPIANSRISING RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Athlete Protection, Representation, and Funding 

a. Provide Robust Health Insurance: USOC should provide robust health insurance—physical and mental—to all athletes. 

i. Issue: 

1. Olympians currently are forced to patch together a variety of health care insurance options to meet their needs. The plan benefits of USOC’s much-touted 

‘‘Elite Athlete Health Insurance Program’’ (EAHI) are opaque and only appear 

to provide Affordable Care Act (ACA)-required coverage to select, ‘‘high-tier’’ 

athletes, leaving many with very high deductible plans.1,2 As of February 2018, 

about 925 elite athletes were covered by EAHI. To put that in perspective, 

around 1,000 athletes compete in the Olympic trials for Track and Field alone.3

Limited EAHI slots for athletes are distributed unevenly among the National 

Governing Boards (NGBs), with eligibility and criteria for insurance coverage 

varying by sport.4,5,6,7

52 

8 Bloomberg Law, Id. 

9Mummery K. (2005). Essay: depression in sport. Lancet 366 S36–S37. 10.1016/S0140– 

6736(05)67840–3. 10 Boren, Cindy. ‘‘ ‘I straight wanted to die’: Michael Phelps wants USOC to help athletes cope 

with depression.’’ Washington Post, March 28, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/earlylead/wp/2018/03/28/i-straight-wanted-to-die-michael-phelps-wants-usoc-to-help-athletes-copewith-depression/?utm_term=.0e65d65e1511 11See: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-ads-consider-pooling-athletesfor-cheaper-better-health-insurance/ 12https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fde0/5f05e6e620f0d10d4b5b3fa511babdd77b8f.pdf 13Dijkstra, Paul et al., ‘‘Managing the health of the elite athlete: a new integrated performance health management and coaching model.’’ Br J Sports Med. 2014 Apr; 48(7): 523–531 14See: https://www.ccmhs-ccsms.ca/ 15See: https://www.outsideonline.com/2306711/american-athletes-need-better-mental-health 

care 

a. Jill Pilgrim, executive director and general counsel for the Track & Field 

Athletes Association, a trade association representing track and field athletes, argues that even successful athletes, albeit ones who are not podium 

contenders, ‘‘fall off a cliff’’ when they age out of their parents’ health plans 

or graduate college. This is particularly harmful for injured athletes who 

may be prevented from competing since their medical bills may reach tens 

of thousands of dollars.8

2. USOC must also provide robust services for all athletes’ mental health, whether currently competing or retired, as ‘‘[a]thletes may be more predisposed [. . .] 

to depression. . . .’’ 9 Michael Phelps has stated that 75–90 percent of Olympic 

athletes experience ‘‘post-Games depression’’ but that very few are willing to 

talk about it openly, possibly due to fear of the associated stigma of weakness.10 USOC’s Pivot Program offers services such as a one-and-a-half day 

workshop to retiring athletes to assist their transition to post-elite competition 

careers; however, the program materials do not mention ‘‘mental health’’ a single time. 

ii. Solution: 

1. Provide guaranteed, comprehensive health services to Olympic athletes, and 

ensure mental health is integrated in athletes’ coaching and training. Other 

countries or sports entities have taken a variety of approaches to providing 

comprehensive health care to their athletes. We recommend consideration of 

these and other models to ensure robust coverage. 

a. At a minimum, expand the Elite Athlete Health Insurance plan to cover all 

athletes in each sport. Explore additional options to offer comprehensive 

health care to all Olympic and aspiring Olympic athletes. NCAA athletic directors have discussed an interesting solution where they would pool their 

athletes in order to bargain for better insurance policies and rates.11 This is 

a concept similar to state health insurance purchasing cooperatives (HIPCs); 

while traditional HIPCs have struggled to succeed, the model could be more 

successful in this setting.12

b. British scientists proposed a particularly innovative model: an ‘‘integrated 

performance health management and coaching model’’ where health care and 

specifically mental health services are integrated directly in NGBs and athlete management.13

c. Another example comes from the Canadian Centre for Mental Health and 

Sport, a project undertaken by University of Ottawa psychologists described 

as ‘‘a not-for-profit organization supporting the mental health and performance of competitive and high-performance athletes and coaches. The CCMHS 

is the first Centre in Canada to offer collaborative sport-focused mental 

health care services designed to help athletes and coaches achieve their performance goals while preserving their mental health and well-being.’’14

d. Programs in both the UK and Canada to address mental health, like those 

described above, are recent phenomena and signal the beginning of broader 

efforts in both countries.15 If the U.S. moves to improve access to mental 

health services for its Olympic athletes, it could act as a model and inspiration for other countries seeking to adopt more comprehensive programs. 

b. Make the Athlete Ombudsman Independent and Accountable: Ensure that the 

Athlete Ombudsman independently represents athletes’ interests and promotes 

transparency in the USOC. 

53 

16See: https://www.teamusa.org/Athlete-Resources/Athlete-Ombudsman 17Sexton, Steve. ‘‘The U.S. Olympic Monopoly Needs Accountability.’’ Wall Street Journal, 

March 29, 2018. 18See: https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2017/12/20/gymnast-mckayla-maroneysays-settlement-covered-up-sex-abuse/ 19 Id. 20See: https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/senate-commerce-subcommittee-issues-testimony 

-from-athletes-advisory-council#.W5_mLOhKiUk 21 Hobson, Will. ‘‘At Larry Nassar sentencing hearing, a parade of horror and catharsis.’’ 

Washington Post, January 18, 2018. Online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/at-larry-nassar-sentencing-hearing-a-parade-of-horror-and-catharsis/2018/01/18/19bed832 

-fc55-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html?utm_term=.5f58fdeb313e 22See: https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-program-a-rare-bright-spot-in-military-s-sexassault-fight-1.269628 

i. Issue: The Athlete Ombudsman is not able to advocate for athletes, and the person holding the position is accountable to the USOC. 

1. The Athlete Ombudsman role is limited to ‘‘offering advice,’’ yet as stated on 

the USOC website, the Ombudsman is only independent with respect to the 

advice it gives.16 The Ombudsman does not act as an advocate for athletes in 

any proceedings, and since the position is funded by and housed within the 

USOC executive committee, the Ombudsman’s ability to effectively address 

concerns about retribution or resources is undermined.17

2. The lack of access to advocacy and counsel can have serious consequences. 

Gymnast McKayla Maroney testified that she was made to sign a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement in a confidential settlement regarding 

the sexual abuse she suffered from Larry Nassar.18 The presence of an effective Athlete Ombudsman might have been able to intervene in this process and 

more effectively advocate for athletes’ rights. 

ii. Solution: The Ombudsman should be housed within an external body. Some 

have argued that the Ombudsman should be made accountable only to the Athlete 

Council.19 The position could be strengthened by placing it within the office of an 

Inspector General, which we recommend creating at ‘‘II.a.’’ below. Additionally, 

Congress should consider recommending that athlete advocates be assigned to 

every NGB. A similar version of this last proposal was a key recommendation of 

the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (‘‘the Military Panel’’), 

which sought to ensure victims’ rights by urging the establishment of an Ombudsman, mirroring how the Department of Justice handles complaints against employees. 

1. Han Xiao, Chair of the Athlete Advisory Council, argues such a position could 

‘‘directly represent the athletes involved, or [. . .] assist the athletes in hiring 

competent representation.’’ 20

c. Establish a Special Victim Counsel Program: Create protections for athletes suffering from damage to their careers based on being a victim of sexual assault. 

i. Issue: Sexual assault is destructive to athletes’ careers and lives. This is particularly true for young athletes who experience abuse throughout their childhood/ 

young adult life. Many have suffered depression, PTSD, and panic attacks, and 

many have had suicidal thoughts.21

ii. Solution: Establish a Special Victim Counsel Program. This is based on a recommendation of the Military Panel and has been adopted by the military. The 

Military Special Victim Counsel (SVC) program assigns a specially-trained attorney to represent officers throughout the process of creating and litigating a sexual 

assault claim. Importantly, an SVC’s duty is only to the client and to no other 

person or entity. This would provide a unique service not currently available to 

athletes: a legally-trained advocate with no ties to other interests or organizations. The program was found to be successful when studied in the Air Force; 

testimonials and survey results lead DoD to expand the program to all five services.22

d. Provide Athlete Stipends and Profit Sharing: Provide direct, monthly stipends 

to athletes. 

i. Issue: USOC spends very little on direct athlete support. According to 2016 IRS 

disclosure (the most recent available), while just over $80 million, or 30 percent 

of USOC expenditures, went to ‘‘member support.’’ Of the 30 percent that went 

to member support, the vast majority of that funding, 84 percent, came in the 

54 

23See: https://www.teamusa.org/footer/finance 24Gleckman, Howard. ‘‘Why is the U.S. Olympic Committee Tax Exempt?’’ Tax Policy Center, 

February 13, 2014. Online at: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/why-us-olympic-committee-tax-exempt-0; also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/the-usoc-needs-aleader-who-cares-about-athletes-more-than-expense-accounts/2018/07/03/9554ded8-7ae5-11e8- 

80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?utm_term=.4fbd23ab01b8 25See: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639407681/calls-for-widespread-change-challengeincoming-head-of-u-s-olympic-committee 26See: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/why-us-olympic-committee-tax-exempt-1 27See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/07/06/the-hardestpart-about-making-the-olympics-for-these-americans-affording-it/?utm_term=.45d96e3d2311 28See: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/how-much-olympic-athletes-get-paid.html 29 Id., this is justified via ‘‘market-based pay,’’ see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnclarke/ 

2012/05/22/guess-how-much-u-s-olympic-committee-execs-make/#68d1d1c84539 30See: https://greatnonprofits.org/whitelabel/reviews/united-states-olympic-committee 31 According to MIT estimates, a living wage in the U.S. is $15.12 per hour, see: http:// 

livingwage.mit.edu/articles/19-new-data-calculating-the-living-wage-for-u-s-states-counties-andmetro-areas 32For a detailed discussion of such a proposal, see, Michael P. Acain, Revenue Sharing: A Simple Cure for the Exploitation of College Athletes, 18 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 307 (1998). 

form of grants to NGBs.23 Grant funding feeds directly into the operating budget 

of NGBs and is not earmarked for direct athlete support. Although it is hard to 

determine exactly how many ‘‘member support’’ dollars are passed through to athletes, available stipend figures are discouraging. Most stipends range from $400 

to $2,000 per month, barely equivalent to minimum wage, and many athletes receive nothing at all.24 Even medal winners face insufficient resources: Caroline 

Lind, a two-time gold medalist in rowing, received just over $2,000 per month this 

past year.25 Additionally, a Tax Policy Foundation estimate found, using optimistic assumptions, that the funds USOC puts towards direct athlete contributions would come to $14,000 per-athlete per-year, well below minimum wage.26 In 

2016, The Washington Post reported that over 100 U.S. athletes created 

GoFundMe pages to cover training expenses and travel for their families prior to 

the Rio Olympics.27

Even the bonuses USOC has paid to Olympic medalists through Operation Gold 

have increased slowly since 2002: $37,500 for gold, $22,000 for silver, and $15,000 

for bronze. This figure is low in absolute terms but also in relative terms when 

compared to what other countries allot for their medalists. For example, France 

provides gold medalists $55,000, and Russia provides $61,000.28

Meanwhile, USOC executives are compensated handsomely. According to the 

same 2016 IRS disclosure, former CEO Scott Blackburn earned over $1 million 

annually, and eight other executives earned over $250,000.29 USOC also appears 

to spend irresponsibly in other areas; for example, it spent $1,600 and $1,800 per 

athlete on clothing for the 2012 Olympic opening and closing ceremonies respectively.30

ii. Solution: 

1. USOC should determine the cost of fully supporting amateur athletes from 

ages eight until retirement in all Olympic disciplines. This assessment should 

be sent to Congress within six months. 

2. USOC should increase direct funding to athletes. At a minimum, USOC should 

increase athlete stipends to ensure full-time athletes are able to earn a living 

wage.31 In addition, USOC should explore a profit-sharing agreement with 

Olympic athletes. This would ensure that sufficient funds are directed to athletes each year and establish a more equitable distribution of funds between 

USOC and Olympic athletes. 

a. The closest analogue for Olympic profit sharing would be proposals for profit 

sharing in NCAA sports. These proposals would pool athletes in a particular 

school sport program or, for our purposes, athletes within an NGB, and allocate a portion of total profits to be distributed amongst the pool. Some proposals would allocate a certain percentage of profit to each athlete, rather 

than treating them collectively. Under either system, NGBs would retain a 

sufficient amount of money to spend on employee compensation and other activities.32

b. Another option for direct support, adopted by Canada and many European 

Countries, is a sports lottery. In these countries, a certain percentage of naVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
55 

33See: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2187052/How-National-Lotterytickets-funded-Britains-Olympics-success—Dianne-Thompson-interview.html 34Deposition of Gary Johansen, Superior Court of California, September 27th, 2016, pg. 51. 35Testimony of Jordan Wieber before the Senate Commerce Committee hearing: ‘‘Olympic 

Abuse: The Role of National Governing Bodies in Protecting Our Athletes,’’ April 18, 2018. Online at: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=B5D59828-1535-498FA429-A6F6CEDFD066 36See: https://www.oig.lsc.gov/ 37 Xiao, Han. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security, ON THE FUTURE OF ATHLETE SAFETY: ‘‘Strengthening and Empowering U.S. Amateur Athletes: Moving Forward with 

Solutions’’ July 24, 2018. 

tional lottery revenues are earmarked for sports and distributed directly to 

athletes.33

II. Corporate Governance: Addressing USOC Systemic Issues 

OlympiansRising has identified systemic issues in the governance of USOC owing 

in part to a lack of accountability and insufficient attention to the concerns of athletes. USOC’s well-documented mismanagement harms the interests of both current 

and aspiring Olympic athletes and must be addressed. Specifically, the USOC Board 

lacks sufficient representation from current and recently retired athletes and is required to report to Congress only once every four years. This creates little incentive 

to be responsive to athletes’ concerns, and results in funds being focused on promotions and advertising rather than direct athlete support. 

Recent revelations about the well-documented history of athlete sexual abuse provide some of the most compelling evidence yet of likely corporate governance problems within USOC. Despite being the organization responsible for overseeing all 

U.S. Olympic and Paralympic teams, USOC has deferred responsibility for the failure to respond to sexual assault. In a deposition over what he did and did not know 

about sexual assault in USA Taekwondo, USOC Associate General Counsel refused 

to refer to ‘‘sexual abuse,’’ ‘‘sexual assault,’’ or ‘‘rape’’ and merely stated ‘‘USOC is 

concerned about SafeSport issues.’’ 34 USOC’s apparent failure to sufficiently address sexual abuse has contributed to a perception among athletes that USOC is 

not serving their interests. 2012 Olympic Gold Medalist Jordan Wieber testified before the Senate Commerce Committee that: 

Nobody was protecting us from being taken advantage of. Nobody was even concerned whether or not we were being sexually abused. I was not protected. My 

teammates were not protected. My parents trusted USA gymnastics and Larry 

Nassar to take care of me and we were betrayed by both. And now, the lack 

of accountability from USAG, USOC, and Michigan State University, have 

caused me and many other girls to remain shameful, confused, and disappointed. 35

In order to help remedy these issues, OlympiansRising proposes the following recommendations to improve the corporate governance of USOC: 

a. Establish an Inspector General for USOC 

i. Issue: The USOC operates as a monopoly in the U.S., without competition from 

other organizations and without regular independent oversight. 

ii. Solution: An independent oversight body should be established to routinely investigate claims of problems within the organization. In the U.S. government, an 

Inspector General (IG) leads an office charged with examining the actions of a 

government agency or military organization. IGs ensure their respective organizations adhere to established government policies, undertake audits, and monitor for 

misconduct, waste, and fraud. There is precedent for IGs in Congressionally-chartered not-for-profits. For example, the Legal Services Corporation, a Congressionally-established 501(c)(3), has an Office of Inspector General.36

1. Han Xiao, Chair of the Athlete Advisory Council, stated in testimony to the 

Senate that an IG would ‘‘preserve the anonymity of athletes, providing protection for whistleblowers,’’ allow for proactive investigations, and reduce legal 

costs to all parties. Xiao stated: 

One potential model, for example, would have the Inspector General appointed 

and removed by the Chair of a separate Senate committee, most likely the 

Senate Judiciary Committee, and require the Inspector General to report on 

its operations to the Senate Commerce Committee on an annual basis. 37

56 

38See: https://www.usada.org/usada-recognized-as-official-anti-doping-agency-by-u-scongress/ 39 Blair, Margaret M. ‘‘Reforming Corporate Governance: What History Can Teach Us.’’ 1 

Berkeley Bus. L.J. 1 (2004). Online at: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcon 

tent.cgi?article=1000&context=bblj 40See: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/sports/scott-blackmun-usoc.html 41See: https://trust.guidestar.org/blog/2014/05/23/5-reasons-why-every-npo-board-shouldhave-term-limits/ 42Selin, Jennifer L. ‘‘What Makes an Agency Independent?’’ Vanderbilt University Working 

Paper, 2013. Online at: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/research/CSDI_WP_08-2013.pdf 43See: https://www.tva.gov/About-TVA/Our-Leadership/Board-of-Directors 44 Jenkins Sally. ‘‘Congress must fix the USOC, and that includes exorbitant executive spending.’’ Washington Post, March 27, 2018. Online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ 

olympics/congress-must-fix-the-usoc-and-that-includes-exorbitant-executive-spending/2018/03/ 

26/a051c898-3128-11e8-94fa-32d48460b955_story.html?utm_term=.348eeedb08dc 

iii. This sort of oversight by Congress is not unprecedented and would be similar 

to the creation of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which was created at the behest of Congress and the Executive Branch to work alongside 

USOC.38

b. Manage Board Composition: Ensure athletes are sufficiently represented on the 

USOC Board. 

i. Issue: The current Board lacks sufficient athlete representation and only has 

two members who were active athletes in the past ten years. 

ii. Solution: 

1. Establish a streamlined role of Congress in nominating or/ratifying nominations. 

a. One way for Congress to have a role could be to create an application process 

for Board membership similar to the Air Force Academy where an applicant 

needs a Congressional or Vice-Presidential nomination for consideration. 

b. This should apply to all Board seats, including the chair. 

2. Establish a requirement for a minimum percentage of retired athletes on the 

Board who are within ten years out of retirement, as well as including athletes’ 

parents on the Board. 

3. Other reforms could include a dual Board system, which has been extensively 

studied, where one Board handles oversight and conflict of interest issues and 

the other Board handling business matters.39

c. Strengthen Board Accountability: Currently, the USOC Board has no ultimate 

accountability.40

i. Issue: Board members stay on the Board. This can produce intense status-quo 

bias in the face of reforms or new opportunities; it does not allow for constant integration of different perspectives; it can lead to general apathy on the part of 

Board members; and it prevents the removal of members who are detrimental to 

the Board’s interests.41

ii. Solution: Adopt term limits. This approach has been proven by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and others. One of the traditional markers of an independent government agency is leadership with a limited 

number of fixed terms. These agencies are able to apply incredible focus to their 

specific duties.42

1. USOC reform legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in 2003 

would have created staggered, four-year terms, and limit directors to six consecutive years of service. 

2. Other federally-chartered entities, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, 

require Board members to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and limit terms 

to five years. Additionally, all proceedings of their meetings are open to the 

public.43

d. Evaluate Executive Compensation 

i. Issue: USOC executive compensation is disproportionately high in relation to 

the funds that go to direct athlete support.44

57 

45 Blackwood, Amy. ‘‘The State of Nonprofit Governance.’’ September, 2014. Online at: https:// 

www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22951/413229-the-state-of-nonprofit-governance 

.pdf 46 36 U.S.C. § 220511 47 Xiao, Han. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security, ON THE FUTURE OF ATHLETE SAFETY: ‘‘Strengthening and Empowering U.S. Amateur Athletes: Moving Forward with 

Solutions’’ July 24, 2018. 48See: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/protecting-students-sexual-assault#campusclimate 49See: ‘‘Sexual assault on both men and women in the military is declining, Pentagon survey 

finds.’’ Washington Post, May 1, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/ 

2017/05/01/sexual-assault-on-both-men-and-women-in-the-military-is-declining-pentagon-survey-finds/?utm_term=.74122efd81ed 50Lebioda, Kati. ‘‘State Policy Proposals to Combat Campus Sexual Assault.’’ Policy Matters, 

December 2015. Online at: https://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/campus 

sexualassault.pdf 

ii. Solution: Undertake a review of USOC executive compensation. Ensure that 

Board review of executive compensation is required and undertaken by Board 

members with no conflicts of interest related to the compensation decision.45

c. Enhanced Congressional Oversight and Reports to Congress 

i. Currently, USOC must submit a report of its receipts and expenditures, a description of activities and accomplishments of the Committee, data concerning diversity in Olympic sports, and a description of steps taken to encourage the participation of women, disabled individuals, and racial minorities in amateur activities to Congress every four years.46

1. Congress should require that reports be more frequent and consider adding criteria such as efforts to ensure the livelihood of amateur athletes. These reports 

should be publicly available. 

2. In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Xiao recommended the 

following: 

I recommend one of two potential solutions: the first would be for Congress to 

establish an oversight committee in the same model as the U.S. Service Academies. An independent USOC Oversight Committee should consist of well-respected non-profit or civic leaders with the requisite expertise to evaluate the 

business practices of the USOC, provide recommendations to the USOC Board 

of Directors, and report directly back to Congress periodically. Alternatively, 

Congress could appoint several members of the USOC Board of Directors in 

a bi-partisan manner. Both models would provide more outside perspective to 

the USOC’s governance structure without significantly impacting the stability 

of the organization.47

f. Conduct Sexual Assault Climate Survey: This idea is modeled on the Military 

Panel recommendations and would help USOC and Congress understand the prevalence and attitude towards sexual assault among athletes. Additionally, it would 

create an accountability mechanism, enabling outside observers to monitor the success of efforts to create a healthier environment for athletes. Sexual assault climate 

surveys ask participants to respond anonymously about perceptions of their institutions’ climate for unwanted sexual assault, perceptions of how their institution responds to sexual assault, and whether and how often they have experienced sexual 

assault. The Department of Justice is a strong proponent of climate surveys and described the surveys as ‘‘essential’’ resources for addressing sexual assault on college 

campuses.48

i. In the military, the survey has been useful in understanding the scope of sexual 

assault and evaluating solutions implemented by service branches and the DoD. 

For example, recent survey results found the rate of sexual assault was declining 

but that that a majority of victims who report cases of sexual assault experience 

some sort of backlash in their unit. The results, particularly reports of retaliation, 

elicited statements from Defense Department officials recognizing retaliation as a 

‘‘crucial’’ problem and one that must be addressed. In this respect, the survey provided clear evidence that could be used to compel action.49

ii. Sexual assault climate surveys are also used widely by colleges and universities 

to gather data on campus sexual assault and to guide strategic initiatives.50

III. Giving SafeSport the Necessary Tools to be Effective 

a. Determine the Comprehensive Human and Financial Resource Needs of 

SafeSport 

58 

51See: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/03/08/safesport-center-answer-athletesex-abuse/98775554/ 52See: https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcats/usa-diving-clears-coach-who-arizona-hiredthen-dumped/article_5614141a-ac8f-11e8-8440-2f89b596eee7.html 53See: https://www.outsideonline.com/2162781/unprotected. SafeSport has broad discretion 

over how to end its investigations. SafeSport can pursue sanctions, make recommendations to 

NGBs on how to proceed, or decide that no further action is necessary. See SafeSport’s code: 

https://safesport.org/what-we-do 

i. Issue: SafeSport may lack the financial and human capital necessary to fully 

address the problem of Olympic sexual assault. As an example, the U.S. AntiDoping Agency, USADA, had total expenses of $20 million in 2016. SafeSport’s 

budget was $4.6 million, with just $1.5 million going to prevention efforts. 

ii. Solution: Ask SafeSport to undertake a thorough assessment of the scope of the 

sexual abuse problem throughout all Olympic disciplines and develop a needs assessment that includes a sufficient financial and human resources budget. This 

assessment should be provided to Congress within six months. 

b. Create Independence from the USOC 

i. Issue: SafeSport should be independent from USOC. Concerns have been raised 

about SafeSport’s hiring of USOC staff and the fact that it is funded directly by 

USOC and NGBs.51 There have been instances in which SafeSport reported evidence of sexual assault-related code violations that did not ultimately result in 

meaningful sanctions. For example, USA Diving recently lifted the suspension of 

John Appleman, an Ohio State Diving Coach who SafeSport reported may have 

committed a code violation for failing to act on reports of sexual assault by his 

colleague Will Bohonyi. USA Diving chose not to pursue SafeSport’s investigation.52 Similar instances have occurred in USA Swimming, as the organization 

never reported a signal sexual-abuse case to the authorities despite its National 

Team director admitting to have sex with a minor.53

ii. Solution: SafeSport should be encouraged to reconfigure its Board with people 

who have no current or historical affiliation with the USOC, including ensuring 

that a significant percent of its Board is comprised of athletes, parents of athletes, 

and people with expertise in preventing sexual abuse. Moreover, SafeSport needs 

its own funding, independent of the USOC. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

PHIL ANDREWS

Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act impacted your National 

Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and resource perspective? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting is very supportive indeed of the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act, and although the mandates that were imposed on NGBs were primarily already addressed in existing policy and procedures enacted by USA Weightlifting, the act has given new reporting 

requirements to members of USA Weightlifting. The requirements of the act fit reasonably well with the existing structures within USA Weightlifting and therefore 

did require vast changes in our particular NGB. 

Enforcing requirements of those policies, now re-enforced by the act, do put a 

strain (albeit a necessary one) on human resources in a smaller organization such 

as ourselves. However, as we are able to automate some of the enforcement of, for 

example, training requirements, this will reduce the human time necessary to ensure compliance with these policies and procedures. 

Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review cases, implement 

training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on how this is being implemented. 

Answer. As an NGB with a small staff of 12, we are unable to financially hire 

an individual purely to work on this area. With that said, we have appointed a 

member of our staff to lead on this project and much like our partnership with 

USADA (U.S. Anti-Doping Agency) in the area of anti-doping education. This covers 

the area of education and outreach. 

We require electronic training to be taken by all staff, coaches, board and committee members, technical officials, administrators, national team athletes and any 

other individual within our membership who exposed to contact with minor athletes 

or occupies a position of power over any athlete, regardless of age. 

59 

Regarding investigation and review. With regard to sexual cases our protocol is 

to report these immediately and without hesitation to the U.S. Center for SafeSport 

(and to law enforcement) which has exclusive jurisdiction in this area. 

Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer 

cases that are not sexual abuse to the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. Yes, USA Weightlifting in 2017 implemented an independent model for 

its’ Ethics & Judicial Committees. 

This means that no elected or employed official in USA Weightlifting has the 

power to dismiss a complaint, the only bodies with this power are the Ethics & Judicial Committee. The Ethics Committee acts as the investigatory house, whereas the 

Judicial Committee’s primary role is to hold hearings in cases. Individuals may also 

invoke a right to a hearing before the American Arbitration Association. 

With the help of the professionals on the Ethics & Judicial Committees, the organization also implemented a significantly Code of Conduct & Ethics in September 

2018. Those professionals include a former inspector general, those who work in professional ethics, attorneys, Federal prosecutors and judges. This code, as required 

by our bylaws, will be reviewed by these two Committees each year. 

We refer and report, as is required, any sexual case to the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport. We also refer any case, as is required, any anti-doping case to the U.S. 

Anti-Doping Agency. 

In the area of Emotional & Physical Abuse, USA Weightlifting has accepted in 

full the U.S. Center for SafeSport Code. At this time, despite its’ name, the U.S. 

Center for SafeSport does not accept cases in the area of Emotional & Physical 

Abuse and these cases are adjudicated at the NGB level. 

Further independent investigator resources are made available to the Ethics and 

Judicial Committees in the instance that they need to call on further human resources to carry out an investigation. In the event of an Emotional or Physical 

Abuse allegation, USA Weightlifting uses an independent investigator as a matter 

of routine. 

A full copy of our updated Code of Conduct & Ethics is available on our website, 

this document fully describes the different processes for an allegation of Emotional 

& Physical Abuse, Ethical violation or administrative grievance. 

Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the others? What 

portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)? 

Answer. Our NGB has an operating budget (total revenue) of approximately 

$5.2m per annum. Approximately 2 percent of these funds are provided by the U.S. 

Olympic Committee, with a slight rise in funding anticipated in 2019. The primary 

driver of that amount is the digital media agreement between USA Weightlifting 

and the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

Based upon studying IRS 990 forms published for the year 2016, the last year for 

which all 990 forms are published, USA Weightlifting was the 28th (of 47) NGBs 

in terms of revenue. This is reasonably similar level of income to USA Squash, USA 

Shooting or USA Boxing. 

The largest revenue driver for USA Weightlifting is Coaching Education, followed 

by membership revenue. Our largest expense is participating in international competitions, followed by direct cash support to athletes, event hosting expenses and 

coaching education rebates. 

Question 5. Based on your NGB’s experiences in handling abuse allegations, did 

the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 

provide the necessary authorities to the Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address 

abuse allegations? If there are shortcomings, please identify them. 

Answer. The 2017 Act did address many needs in the area of protecting our young 

athletes from sexual abuse in Sport—inclusive of a critical update to the 1990 Victims of Child Abuse Act to extend mandatory reporting requirements in the area 

of sexual abuse to both law enforcement and the U.S. Center for SafeSport. It was 

an important step forward in addressing the issue of sexual abuse in sport. 

The 2017 Act also recognized the jurisdiction of the U.S. Center for SafeSport, 

however the Center faces significant operational and funding issues which must continue to be addressed in order for the Center to be able to address each and every 

abuse allegations in a way in which victims of abuse, and alleged offenders, may 

be able to trust truly in the quality of the process. 

Finally, the 2017 Act did give a requirement for NGBs to put into place due procedures to reduce or prevent one on one interactions between covered individuals and 

athletes and especially to ensure an ease of reporting. These requirements put additional reasonable pressure on NGBs to act. 

60 

NGBs, together with all parties involved, must continue to monitor and review 

their approach to preventing sexual abuse in their sport over time, over and above 

of the legal requirement to do so. 

However, the act does not address the need for similar oversight, policies and reporting mechanisms for those sporting organizations not affiliated with a National 

Governing Body. This remains a loophole in the sport world, wider than the NGBs, 

which needs to be addressed for the Nation to truly do everything possible to discourage and prevent abuse in sport. 

The major shortcoming of the act is the failure to provide Federal funding for the 

enforcement side of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. At this moment in time, the funding for the Center is simply insufficient and coming from interest sources such as 

NGBs and the U.S. Olympic Committee. While taxpayer resources ought to be treated with the utmost respect, the U.S. Anti-Doping agency model has proved that to 

have true independence, Federal funding independent of the U.S. Olympic Committee and NGB funding stream is necessary. Notwithstanding the source, and the 

NGBs and U.S. Olympic Committee have doubled their respective funding amounts 

for 2018, the funding at the moment from all sources simply does not scratch the 

surface of being able to address the outstanding level of complaints received by the 

U.S. Center for SafeSport. We all need the Center to be effective, to have truly independent power, to work—at the moment this is not the case and funding to acquire 

the number of qualified investigators and legal staff is a reason why. 

Another area that ought to be addressed by the act in any revision is penalties 

for misuse of reporting activities. Unfortunately, there is some evidence to show that 

some allegations are being made in either a timed fashion or alternatively in a malicious fashion for maximum impact on sporting decisions, for example to harm a particular coach or athlete in their selection process. While it is clear these are an exceptionally small amount of cases and in no manner should the ability to report be 

rolled-back, in a competitive environment such as sport the penalty for clear and 

deliberate mis-use of the systems put in place ought to carry significant sanction. 

Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors regarding Larry 

Nassar’s sexual abuse under the guise of medical treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, expertise and access in one individual for a 

lengthy period of time was a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. 

Has your NGB updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 

happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has the 

structure of your medical staff changed? 

Answer. The Nasser case, and especially considering that we have direct victims 

of Dr. Larry Nasser in our sport certainly increases the spotlight on the area of 

Sports Medicine. Our Sports Medicine Society has taken a Committee led approach 

for over a decade, chaired by Dr. Mark Lavallee. 

USA Weightlifting has long had in place a rotational scheme of Sports Medicine 

professionals, ensuring a balance between knowledge of our sport and athletes together with the lack of the ability for an individual practitioner to become seen as 

the one and only person capable of treating an athlete or to become so familiar with 

an athlete or set of athletes, especially amongst youth athletes, that they may be 

able to engage in grooming behavior. This rotational approach in particular has 

been praised by direct Nasser survivors as an item that would have, likely, gone 

some way to preventing the level of widespread abuse. 

With that said, since the Nasser case USA Weightlifting has implemented a yearly review of its’ Sports Medicine policies which is conducted across medical, legal 

and administrative professionals with the goal of ensuring athlete safety, athlete 

care is paramount in both our domestic and international event provision for our 

athletes. 

A full version of our Sports Medicine policy is available on our website, inclusive 

of the requirements imposed upon an individual in order to serve as part of USA 

Weightlifting’s Sports Medicine team. 

I was also able to attend the USOC Conference on Sexual Abuse in Sports Medicine recently in Pittsburgh. It was refreshing to hear the best practices of a number 

of sports in this area, and a determined approach to getting this right across not 

only the USOC and NGBs but also the American College of Sports Medicine. In particular, it was important to discuss the specific challenges that are faced at the elite 

sport level in Olympic Sport, for example the treatment of athletes in remote and 

unusual locations, e.g., Turkmenistan. 

Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, what policies 

and procedures have you put in place regarding access, retention and preservation 

of athlete’s medical records? Have you provided those policies to USOC? 

Answer. No Response. 

61 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

PHIL ANDREWS

Question 1. Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy organizations to have them review and suggest improvements to your policies and procedures to ensure with certainty that your athletes are protected from abuse? 

Answer. We have proactively engaged directly with survivors of sexual abuse in 

sport, including those who joined me at the Senate in Washington DC this October. 

We have made proactive changes and programs based upon direct feedback from 

those who have survived abuse and are within our sport. We have not, however, 

reached out to advocacy groups outside of those directly affected by abuse in sport. 

Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to determine and 

measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report abuse? How recently were 

these surveys conducted? 

Answer. Our approach to this area has been direct conversations with those who 

have suffered from abuse in sport, and to find out what might have helped them 

to come forward during the time they were suffering. Each and every suggestion 

made has been implemented. With that said, we will be adding a question to our 

annual membership survey in early 2019 to measure this item with our wider membership. 

Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes understand what 

type of behavior from coaches or other adults is inappropriate and should be reported? 

Answer. Our NGB, like others, is taking a proactive approach to education in this 

area, both as an organization and in partnership with the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

One key item is that we insist that even our youth athletes have education from 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport for national team or national camp participation, 

where they might be exposed to less familiar individuals. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

PHIL ANDREWS

Question 1. Currently, amateur athletes are only eligible for up to 10 years after 

their last qualifying international competition to represent athletes on NGB or 

USOC boards. Athlete advocates have called for this 10-year requirement to be relaxed, so that older, possibly retired athletes who have more professional experience, 

time, and resources, may contribute their expertise. Would you support expanding 

the eligibility? 

Answer. With careful thought and implementation, this is something that ought 

to be supported. There are former athletes who can bring significant value to the 

work of a Board or Committee. With that said, there are also non-athlete areas of 

boards that can also bring this same value. For example, of our 10-member board, 

50 percent have experience as high-level athletes within our sport, while only two 

of them are specifically an athlete representative (for clarity, the remainder would 

not qualify for the 10-year rule). 

Question 2. Provided that eligibility for athlete representation is expanded, would 

you support ensuring that the membership and voting power held by such amateur 

athletes is not less than 50 percent of the membership and voting power held in 

the board of directors of the corporation and in the committees and entities of the 

corporation? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting is already in this position at the Board level, which 

reflects my answer at the Committee hearing at the Senate. Our board has the good 

fortune to include 50 percent or more of those with experience as a high-level athlete in our sport. Added to this they bring their post-athletic experience as a coach, 

technical official or as a professional to the current board make up. 

As I reflected in my above answer, the idea of expanding those on the board who 

have experience as an elite athlete should be encouraged. However, the structure 

of that ought to be considered very carefully in order to ensure the goals of this idea 

is realized. 

Question 3. Please explain any factors preventing you from changing your NGB’s 

bylaws to (1) increase the percent of athlete representation on your board, and (2) 

allow for older former amateur athletes who may have more professional experience 

to serve on boards. If there are no factors preventing you from making these 

changes, please explain why you have not or will not in the near future. 

Answer. Although there are no obvious barriers, and as already noted we are already in a position where 50 percent or more of our Board have experience as a 

high-level athlete in our sport, a change in the voting rights of our members would 

62 

require approval by the membership of USA Weightlifting. There would be the issue 

to consider of representation of those current constituencies on the Board of Directors. At this time, those seats occupied by those with former participation as highlevel athletes might be in a technical area, at-large area or grassroots area. If these 

were changed to have a pure qualification to be a former athlete, it would take a 

great deal of thought around the technical and grassroots areas and how these 

members ought to be represented at the board level. 

Question 4. Please explain your NGB’s process for changing bylaws, ethical codes, 

and any other policies or procedures. 

Answer. Our bylaws contain an amendment clause that broadly dictates that if 

a voting right is changed, an item must be approved by our wider membership while 

non-voting updates may be voted upon by our Board of Directors. Our Code of Ethics is reviewed annually by our Ethics & Judicial Committees, with the amendment 

being signed off by our Board of Directors. Generally for a substantive policy, the 

policy would be looked at by staff, by a committee or task force appropriate to a 

given policy and finally by our Board of Directors. 

Question 5. Are you committed to making sure half of coaches at protected competitions are women? If yes, how do you plan to accomplish that? 

Answer. Our coach selection procedures for personal coaches present and funded 

by USA Weightlifting at protected competitions follow an objective process, regardless of gender. IT is fair to say the majority of our coaches selected in this process 

are male. In our 5-tier coach ranking system, 4 individuals have reached International Coach level who are female, and one has reached the pinnacle Snr International Coach level. 

USA Weightlifting has recently seen a large expansion in the number of Women 

participating in the sport since approximately 2010, and this is beginning to start 

to translate into the number of Women in Coaching and technical official positions. 

USA Weightlifting is making significant efforts to encourage female coaches. This 

has included the recent implementation of a specific Women’s Camp, a specific 

Women’s Coaching Education Weekend, and a Women’s Coach Mentorship program 

with the goal of generating more elite level female coaches. 

Our bylaws also specifies a goal of 50–50 gender representation, and in the context of our administrative structure requires gender representation within that set 

up. 

It is worth noting the Chair of USA Weightlifting is female and represents coaches on that body. She is also chair of the IWF Women’s Commission. 

One of our two Coaching Education Managers on staff is female, our National 

Team Manager is female, while our contracted team nutritionist is also female. 

With all that said, we cannot at this point guarantee that 50 percent of coaches 

attending these competitions be female since it is dependent on the objective selection process for coaches. With that said, while it is not a written requirement (save 

for teams involving minor female athletes) a U.S. female official accompanies the 

vast majority of teams that we send to international competitions, including protected competitions. 

Question 6. Given USOC’s oversight relationship with NGBs and since NGBs are 

required to follow guidelines and requirements set forth by USOC, would you agree 

that USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and how effectively they promote athlete safety? Why or why not? 

Answer. Absolutely, it has always been my understanding and reading of the Ted 

Stevens’ Act 1978 that the U.S. Olympic Committee has oversight responsibilities 

of the NGBs. This is a challenging, but vital and important, role. 

Question 7. Would you support the Athletes’ Advisory Council having a vote on 

USOC’s Board? 

Answer. The AAC current occupies three (3) seats on the USOC Board, under Section 3.2 (c) of the U.S. Olympic Committee Bylaws. 

Question 8. Would you support the Multi-Sport Organization Council having a 

vote on USOC’s Board? 

Answer. I would only support this provision if the MSOC members submit to the 

same requirements, specifically regarding Anti-Doping, SafeSport and Athlete Safety matters, and if the vote (members) of the USOC board is equally or lower to the 

number of Athlete (AAC) Representatives, and equal or lower to the number of National Governing Body (NGBC) Representatives. 

Question 9. If the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to add an individual to its 

banned or temporarily suspended lists, what authority does your NGB have to independently take such action? 

63 

Answer. The U.S. Center for SafeSport does have exclusive jurisdiction in the area 

of sexual abuse, however, the NGBs are still charged with the ethical and good running of their individual sport. There may also be occasions in which jurisdiction is 

returned to the NGB, or that the matter is determined by the Center to be best adjudicated at the NGB level, for example where the offence considers a sport-specific 

rule. In these cases, yes, the NGB may implement a suspension with attention to 

due process for both the alleged victim and alleged offender. 

Question 10. Is it true that if NGB membership is given up before disciplinary 

action is taken, you can escape being placed on your NGB’s disciplinary records? 

Answer. No. 

Question 11. How can banned lists—whether on NGBs sites or the Center for 

SafeSport’s records—be made more useful for athletes, parents, clubs? How in sync 

are the Center for SafeSport and NGB’s lists? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting has provided by the U.S. Center for SafeSport and 

U.S. Olympic Committee a copy of our banned list, updated as and when an individual is added (except where added by the Center or U.S. Anti-Doping Agency). 

Note our centralized banned list includes those under sanction for ethical reasons. 

The next logical step is a centralized database searchable by location and sport 

available on a centralized basis. 

Question 12. Where should individuals go for the most comprehensive list and information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members for your NGB? Does 

the Center for SafeSport’s website have a comprehensive list? Does your NGB’s 

website have a comprehensive list? Please explain. 

Answer. A full list of banned members (inclusive of those under temporary sanction) can be found under the member tab at our website. It is also linked for those 

hosting any USA Weightlifting activity for the purpose of enforcement. The U.S. 

Center for SafeSport has been provided with a regularly updated copy of this list. 

Question 13. If you become aware that a coach has been engaged in sexual misconduct, for example, would your first call be to law enforcement or to the Center 

for SafeSport? 

Answer. Law Enforcement, then the U.S. Center for SafeSport. This also covers 

when a non-coach may have been alleged to have engaged in this conduct. 

Question 14. Do you ever rely on the Center for SafeSport for required reporting 

to law enforcement? Under what circumstances would you not call law enforcement 

at all, but only inform the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. No. 

Question 15. If you witness or receive complaints regarding grooming behaviors 

by a member, would you report that to law enforcement, or only to the Center for 

SafeSport? 

Answer. Both. 

Question 16. Under what circumstances would or have you hired an independent 

investigator to investigate a complaint? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting utilizes independent investigators when investigating 

allegations of Emotional and Physical Abuse as a matter of routine. USA 

Weightlifting also makes this resource available to our Ethics Committee in the 

course of ethical investigations. 

Question 17. How many times have you personally called law enforcement, pursuant to your mandatory reporting requirements? 

Answer. I am happy to say, I have not yet had the occasion. 

Question 18. What specific penalties are in place for members in your NGB who 

fail to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement? How many times have you 

imposed such penalties? 

Answer. Failure to report child abuse is a crime and therefore would be required 

to be reported in the same way as above for the child abuse itself. However, we have 

not yet had this instance in our sport where we have had to pursue an individual 

for failure to report. 

Question 19. Has your NGB developed explicit rules that reinforce the ethical line 

between coaches and athletes (i.e., no texting, including parents or guardians on correspondence)? 

Answer. Yes, since July 2017, USA Weightlifting has had specific policies on the 

interaction between adults and minors in regard to electronic communication as well 

as other sport specific areas such as appropriate touching of an athlete. 

Question 20. Have you developed sport-specific educational or training materials 

to complement the more generic U.S. Center for SafeSport training materials? Who 

have you worked with in developing such materials? 

64 

1https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/Arbitration—HearingPanel-Cases/Section-10/2011/Robinson-v-USA-Taekwondo-22712.pdf?la=en&hash=31C1EF0B 

6376CA5D5C73BEF0598708EA9A9040F1 

Answer. We have not yet developed specific materials regarding our sport, however we have put into place specific policies to our sport addressing specific areas 

in our sport, for example, the requirement to wear the singlet during the weigh in 

for minors (and the choice for adults), as well as appropriate communication and 

touching of the athlete. These policies are available to athletes and coaches alike. 

Question 21. Do you think it might be confusing to athletes for NGBs to have internal ‘‘SafeSport’’ programs and for there to also be a ‘‘U.S. Center for SafeSport’’ 

that is actually in charge of handling sexual misconduct? Can you commit today to 

changing the name of any existing internal ‘‘SafeSport’’ programs to make the distinction clear for athletes? 

Answer. This issue warrants wider discussion. I would be happy to commit to 

whatever name makes the ‘‘Who, What, Where, When’’ of Athlete Safety & 

SafeSport issues clear to the Athlete, Coaches and other stakeholders. This requires 

us to decide for example if the term, ‘‘SafeSport’’ applies simply to sexual abuse or 

also to emotional and physical abuse. It also means that we need to establish if it 

is confusing that, for example, NGB policies related to sexual abuse are not called 

‘‘SafeSport’’ but the investigatory body for those policies is called ‘‘SafeSport’’. USA 

Weightlifting is happy to participate in that conversation, and will commit to the 

appropriate naming term agreed upon by any working group on the matter that includes representation from the NGB, U.S. Olympic Committee, U.S. Center for 

SafeSport as well as views from athletes, coaches, survivor advocate groups and 

other relevant stakeholders. 

Question 22. At this Subcommittee’s last hearing on amateur athletes, Mr. Han 

Xiao, Chair of the Athletes’ Advisory Council testified that NGBs would intentionally circumvent athlete representatives. He recounted a variety of tactics including: 

• Appointing rather than electing athlete representatives to sign documents; 

• Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on file to sign documents; 

• Giving an AAC representative a document with very little time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature; 

• And scheduling meetings such that competing athlete reps cannot attend, or removing what the NGB perceives to a problematic athlete representative and 

then failing to refill the position. 

Some of these tactics were employed by USA Taekwondo and documented in a 

2012 Section 10 Complaint against the NGB.1

Have you ever employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine the authority and responsibilities of your NGB’s athlete representatives? Will you commit to 

ensuring these tactics are never used again in the future? How will you ensure this? 

Answer. In my tenure, and to the best of my knowledge, USA Weightlifting has 

never engaged in these tactics. USA Weightlifting will never engage in the above 

mentioned tactics, and calls on our fellow NGBs to ensure that these tactics are 

never employed as well as the U.S. Olympic Committee to ensure that no NGB is 

able to use these tactics at any time without consequence from the U.S. Olympic 

Committee. 

Question 23. The USOC has argued, time and again, to be dismissed from lawsuits because it has ‘‘no control’’ over NGBs. In fact, the evidence shows that USOC 

actually exercises a significant amount of control over NGBs, like your own. Please 

describe what policies, procedures, or guidelines are provided to NGBs through 

USOC. Please also describe any financial support, staffing, or legal support received 

from or funded by USOC. 

Answer. USA Weightlifting generates 98 percent of its budget independently of 

the U.S. Olympic Committee, including the costs of protected competitions. USA 

Weightlifting receives a small amount of support in the high performance area covering one member of staff and some small ancillary costs, in 2018 received small 

grants for the areas of fundraising, international relations and web streaming. The 

vast majority of funding from the U.S. Olympic Committee arises from the Digital 

Marketing Agreement between USA Weightlifting and the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

Since the creation of the USOC’s NGB Services department, led by former USA 

Archery CEO Denise Parker and overseen by former USA Weightlifting CEO Rick 

Adams, the USOC has vastly ramped up its’ oversight and compliance capabilities 

65 

2https://www.teamusa.org/usa-taekwondo/v2-resources/legal/usat-suspension-list 

3https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-child-abuse-is-se-1826279217 

and enforcement, its’ communication of best practices and, together with the Athlete 

Safety department, have also provided much higher levels of expectation regarding 

policies and procedures and good governance. 

The U.S. Olympic Committee has been particularly focused on revising and enforcing athlete safety requirements on NGBs, using the USOC Athlete Safety Policy, 

although this is not the only example. The U.S. Olympic Committee has also used 

the new compliance checklists and audits as a tool to evaluate NGBs areas of weaknesses in governance, athlete safety, athlete representation and other key areas of 

ethical operation. 

USA Weightlifting encourages the USOC to continue to grow in this area so we 

may continue to recover as a movement. 

Question 24. Before the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established, did your NGB 

have the authority to suspend or ban a coach? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 25. After the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s establishment in March 2017, 

does your NGB still have the authority to independently suspend or ban a coach, 

even if the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to do so? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 26. In August, the Center for SafeSport declined to defend its ban of 

Jean Lopez, a taekwondo coach it had determined, months earlier, was engaged in 

a ‘‘decades long pattern of sexual misconduct.’’ The Center then removed him from 

its database of sanctioned individuals. Despite this, Steve McNally, the President 

and CEO of USA Taekwondo, has kept Jean Lopez on USA Taekwondo’s suspension 

list.2 Do you think Mr. McNally’s decision was appropriate? Would you have made 

the same decision? Why or why not? 

Answer. Since my wife is a former employee of USA Taekwondo, I will declare 

a conflict of interest in answering this question as I have some knowledge of the 

behavior of Mr. Lopez and therefore a pre-conceived perception of Mr. Lopez. 

I will, however, express significant concern that the U.S. Center for SafeSport declined to defend its’ finding in this case. This suggests significant process and investigatory issues which ought to be of concern for all of us with the goal of having 

a robust way to keep young athletes safe. 

Question 27. What consequences have and will you impose on member clubs that 

do not take your NGB’s banned and suspended lists seriously? Please explain what 

enforcement mechanisms you have. How often have you exercised such enforcement 

mechanisms? Please detail. 

Answer. A member club who employs a banned individual, very simply is no 

longer a sanctioned member club. IF the Head Coach (designated coach) or any 

other affiliated individual becomes ineligible, either that individual is removed from 

involvement from the club or the club is no longer a member club. 

In one case, the club coach and club president were suspended. In this case, the 

club therefore became a non-member club and immediately the athlete members 

were notified and became unattached. 

Question 28. How regularly on background checks conducted on your members? 

Answer. Yearly. An individual pays and submits their data every 2 (two) years, 

and a supplementary screen is carried out in the intervening year. 

Question 29. There are criticisms that the term ‘‘SafeSport,’’ according to a 

Deadspin article, was developed and trademarked by the USOC to serve as ‘‘a pleasant-sounding euphemism for a horrible set of acts.’’ 3 How you lead by example, 

when it comes to making sure sexual abuse is not merely swept under the rug as 

‘‘SafeSport’’ issues? 

Answer. Respectfully, I’m not sure that our organization, certainly not our current 

leadership, has ever considered the word ‘‘just’’ immediately before any word that 

means or refers to sexual abuse. 

Question 30. What does a pedophile or sexual predator look like? 

Answer. There is no generic look, age, gender, race, orientation or otherwise of 

a sexual offender. 

Question 31. In your experience investigating sexual misconduct complaints, I’m 

sure you often receive character witness statements from parents and athletes 

themselves. Have you found that there’s any correlation between such statements 

and whether the individual is actually guilty? How much weight should be placed 

in such character witness statements? Can you commit to reducing the weight—if 

any—that your NGB currently places on such statements during an investigation? 

66 

Answer. Fortunately, I have not personally had to engage in investigation. Since 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport have the exclusive jurisdiction in this area, this question ought to be directed to their team of investigators. I would generally be of the 

opinion to seek input from experts in the investigation of sexual crimes, together 

with academic researchers in this area if a determination is yet to be made by the 

Center. 

Question 32. Do you agree that it is possible for an individual to be respectful to 

certain individuals, and abusive toward others? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 33. What is the process in which your NGB keeps its respective website 

and other publications up to date listing banned or temporarily suspended individuals by the Center for SafeSport? Does your NGB have a dedicated staff member 

update these lists? If so, what is the position title of said staffer? How often are 

these lists checked to keep current? On a daily basis? 

Answer. Once a sanction is finalized by the Center, and information is made 

available to the NGB, the website is updated by our Director of Engagement (who 

has responsibility for our website), or in his absence our Marketing & Content Manager, within 1 business day. This also occurs for other sanctions imposed by our 

Ethics & Judicial Committee or by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Our Membership 

Manager will make a similar update in our membership system, again within 1 

business day. 

Question 34. I understand that arbitration is the general process used by the Center for SafeSport to address disputes. 

Answer. This matches my understanding, the U.S. Center for SafeSport submits 

to arbitration hearings (at the cost of the individual wishing to appeal), if there is 

a dispute of its’ investigatory finding. 

Question 35. Who pays for your NGB’s attorney fees in arbitration? Is it supported 

in any way by USOC? 

Answer. In my six (6) years with USA Weightlifting, we have not had an arbitration hearing (though, there we have had arbitration hearings involving our sport at 

the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and U.S. Center for SafeSport). 

Question 36. Who pays for athletes’ attorney fees in arbitration? Do you provide 

any assistance for athlete’s attorney fees? 

Answer. At the time of writing, athletes are responsible for their attorney’s fees. 

Question 37. What assistance do you receive from the USOC when in arbitration? 

What kind of legal guidance does the USOC provide in such cases? 

Answer. We have never been provided, nor have we sought, legal advice from the 

U.S. Olympic Committee to the best of my knowledge. 

Question 38. Arbitration proceedings can be re-victimizing for survivors, who must 

relive their most painful memories under a grueling cross-examination. Questions 

asked by the opposing side have reportedly included intimate questions about an individual’s personal sexual history. Do you believe such questions about an individual’s sexual history relevant? How so? Can you commit to barring any such questions from further arbitration or legal proceedings? 

Answer. Since our NGB should not be considering cases of sexual misconduct at 

the NGB level, these should be dealt with at the U.S. Center for SafeSport level 

then we, as staff, do not have any experience of this line of questioning. As a staff, 

we no longer control these hearings and therefore have no influence or control over 

the line of questioning given in a sexual misconduct case. I would respectfully advise the Senator to raise this question with the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Question 39. Former USA Swimmer and Olympic Gold medalist Nancy HogsheadMakar has noted that women are largely missing from leadership positions throughout swimming’s more competitive levels. While women represent just over 50 percent of coaches in the sport nationwide, a meager fraction of women comprise the 

elite ranks of the sport. As recently as 2016, the U.S. Olympic swim team had no 

female coaches. What, in your opinion, is the reason for the dearth of women coaching at Olympic levels, and other elite coaching levels in the sport? 

Answer. We agree with Ms. Hogshead-Makar that would like to see an increase 

in Women’s Coaches in the Sport of Weightlifting. 

Question 40. Do you believe that a lack of female coaches is problematic? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 41. Do you believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task Force, or 

other coaching summits aimed at female coaches is sufficient to actually reduce gender disparity at elite levels? Beyond these leadership resources, what is your NGB 

doing to change the culture that currently stifles women leaders within sport? 

67 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 42. Do you agree that more female coaches at an elite level would make 

athletes safer? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 43. The AAC has reported concerns that the Athlete Ombudsman does 

not act independently of the USOC leadership. Would you agree that the Athlete 

Ombudsman should be moved outside the USOC structure to an Office of Inspector 

General or another external office? Do you believe that the U.S. Center for Safe 

Sport is sufficiently independent from the USOC? What conflicts of interest currently exist that prevent the Center from achieving true independence? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 44. Do you think former employees of the USOC should be working at 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport? Do you understand how this would compromise the 

Center’s independence? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 45. Would you support the creation of an Office of Inspector General office—like the oversight branches of Federal or state agencies—to independently investigate internal abuse, mismanagement or misconduct and promote efficiency and 

effectiveness at the USOC, U.S. Center for Safe Sport, and National Governing Bodies? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 46. Regarding health insurance for athletes, what criteria does your 

NGB use to determine which athletes receive paid health insurance coverage either 

through the NGB or USOC? What percentage of the cost of this health insurance 

coverage are your respective athletes or their families responsible for? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 47. What percentage of your athletes receive health insurance through 

the Elite Health Insurance Plan (EHIP)? Does this program cover sports-or competition-related injuries? Does this program cover non-competition-related injuries? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 48. Does your NGB terminate the insurance of athletes whose injuries 

may impact their competition status? If so, how much notice is provided to the athlete? Please describe any other NGB-or USOC-sanctioned health insurance programs available to member athletes and whether those programs are paid for by the 

NGB or USOC. 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 49. Does this health insurance program provide coverage for mental 

health services? Do you believe that mental health services are important for athletes? Do you believe that it is or should be your NGB’s responsibility to provide 

mental health services and coverage for athletes? Beyond insurance coverage, what 

mental health services does your respective NGB currently provide for athletes? Are 

these services available to all athletes under the NGB’s purview, or just athletes at 

elite levels? What can your NGB specifically do to improve your athlete wellness 

and mental health support services for athletes? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 50. What is the process for an athlete at your NGB to take advantage 

of these mental health services—for example, do they have to first notify their coach 

or an executive at your NGB? Do you think that in cases regarding mental health 

services, it is appropriate to require an athlete to first notify their coach or NGB 

leadership of a potential mental health problem before receiving treatment or assistance? Do you agree that such a policy places athletes in a position where they can 

potentially be retaliated against, or further abused? Do you agree that at the very 

least, such a policy could prevent athletes from coming forward to take advantage 

of critical mental health services? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

Question 51. What was your NGB’s total budget in Fiscal Year 2017? 

Answer. $5.2m 

Question 52. How much (dollar amount or percentage) of the budget came from 

the USOC either directly or in the form of grants? 

Answer. Approximately 2 percent of our budget is provided by the U.S. Olympic 

Committee. 

Question 53. What percentage of your budget goes to direct athlete support in the 

form of a stipend? How many athletes receive a stipend? 

Answer. I interpret the question here to mean direct cash to athletes, rather than 

support for athletes otherwise than in cash. 15.2 percent of our total operating 

68 

4https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Weightlifting/Features/2018/October/10/USA-Weightlifting 

-Launches-Athlete-Wellness-Program 

budget was spent in this manner. This excludes direct athlete support in cash to 

the athlete which is provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

If we include items spent on athlete support otherwise than in cash, 33 percent 

of our budget goes to directly supporting athletes. This does not include any staff 

salaries but does include international event travel and support, recovery support 

funding, sports medicine funding, camp support and other forms of athlete support. 

While explaining those numbers, I would wish to point out that the manner in 

which USA Weightlifting makes its’ revenue is via Coaching Education, where we 

expend 53 percent of income back to the instructors and hosts of our coaching 

courses, which therefore takes a significant percent of our revenue. This is unique 

to our National Governing Body (NGB), as we are the only NGB to derive our largest revenue source from this area. 

Additionally, USA Weightlifting provides 8 National Events per annum which ap- proximately $880,000 worth of business, which is an approximate break even. 

Removing those areas of operation, the percent of ‘‘available’’ funds that is spent 

on athlete support rises significantly. Finally, our budget for direct cash to athletes 

has risen over 900 percent since 2012. 

Question 54. Does USOC have any role in budgeting decisions within your NGB? 

Answer. None whatsoever. 

Question 55. Does your current NGB budget limit your ability to provide services 

to athletes? Does it limit your ability to implement and adhere to Center for Safe 

Sport policy, or to conduct thorough internal investigations on complaints of misconduct? 

Answer. Yes, of course with additional funding it would be possible to make available additional services to athletes especially in regard to performance services and 

in respect to additional funding that can be dedicated to competition funding for 

both athletes and for personal coaches of an athlete. 

I do not believe that our budget limits our ability to adhere to SafeSport policy 

or investigate complaints that arise. 

Question 56. Does USOC have the ability to direct your NGB in making decisions 

related to Olympic competition? 

Answer. Yes, the Olympic Games is the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Olympic 

Committee, and therefore specifically in Olympic Games competition, the USOC can 

direct the NGB in our decision making. The USOC has a general oversight role as 

we compete elsewhere within our Olympic sport. 

Question 57. Does your NGB have a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy, so that an adult is never 

alone with an athlete? Why or why not? Have you considered such a policy? 

Answer. Yes, to ensure the safety of the athlete. 

Question 58. Has USOC ever asked NGBs to consider a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting implemented the two-deep policy for Sports Medicine 

at least 6 years ago and in 2017 in other areas, such as weigh-in. Therefore, while 

I do not specifically remember the USOC asking our NGB to implement a two-deep 

policy, it is entirely possible that the USOC did ask for us to do so, but since we 

had already done so, it was not noted as an action for our particular NGB. 

Question 59. Most child-safety experts recommend a policy of not texting a minor 

individually. In other words, coaches can text others in a group, or can include parents on the text, but should not text athletes individually. Why hasn’t your NGB 

adopted such a policy to ensure inappropriate conversations are not taking place? 

Answer. Our NGB has adopted a policy in this matter, which was adopted in July 

of 2017. This policy requires that electronic interaction include the parent or guardian except with specific written permission of the parent or guardian and where a 

copy must be available to the parent or guardian. 

Question 60. On October 10, 2018, USA Weightlifting launched a new athlete 

wellness program that makes available pro-bono resources to support the mental 

health and wellness of athletes.4

Who did you consult before establishing such a program? Did you get input from 

USOC? Did you get input from the U.S. Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. This program was designed based off of the direct feedback of survivors 

of sexual abuse in sport. The program serves those who are participating in the 

sport of Weightlifting (though this is primarily athletes, it covers any member). 

The primary people that I consulted before rolling this program out were those 

holding LCSW and LPC qualifications, as well as educators in this area, who are 

those with primary expertise in the recovery from trauma. 

69 

I did not consult the U.S. Olympic Committee or U.S. Center for SafeSport on the 

matter, though I have made the resource available to them to offer to those members or athletes they come into contact with. 

This program does not deal with the response from an investigation and enforcement standpoint, it deals with recovery from trauma, and the mental wellness of 

our members and athletes. That trauma may or may not arise specifically from sexual abuse in sport. There is also no obligation that the athlete or member has arrived at this resource via the U.S. Center for SafeSport or via the U.S. Olympic 

Committee 

Question 61. Have you heard any feedback about the program? What have you 

heard? How will you implement this feedback? 

Answer. The program is very new, at the time of writing just a shade short of 

6 weeks old. Therefore, feedback is reasonably limited at this moment. I would be 

more than happy to follow up with Senator Blumenthal and/or the Committee as 

appropriate in a few months’ time to further evaluate what feedback has been received. 

However, I will pull out that I heard from one particular recipient of this program 

to the extent that it had been tremendously impactful to them and assisted them 

considerably. 

We have 23 members who are have reached out participating in this program, 

this ranges from elite athletes on our national team to non-elite athletes to former 

athletes who are now coaches. We expect these numbers to grow in the coming 

months. To be clear, we do not hold these members to account on the amount of 

therapeutic intervention they go through, so it is possible some may have stopped 

participating without that knowledge. 

Question 62. Instead of having to go through you or Suzy Sanchez to take advantage of these new services, would you consider making it possible for athletes to 

anonymously take advantage of such services? When will you do so? 

Answer. We would like to do so, the challenge is while we can keep the names 

confidential of the athletes (and/or members, since the program is not limited simply 

to athletes), the challenge with this approach is the anonymity. In order to build 

a worthwhile therapeutic relationship, it is necessary for us to connect an individual 

with therapeutic resources that are local to them and appropriate to their needs. 

In this wide-ranging area it is almost impossible to do that without some degree 

of interaction. 

The idea of making both a male and female contact available is to allow the athlete (or member) to go to the individual that makes them feel most comfortable. Additionally, Suzy does not have a direct input to selection matters so therefore it allows for an individual to contact someone who does not have any influence over selection policy. 

I do want to make it clear that this program is for the benefit of all athletes 

(members) participating in Weightlifting, regardless of their age and regardless of 

the origin of their trauma. Anything shared, as is required by the American Counselling Association Code of Ethics, and typically by state law, there is privilege between the therapist and the athlete/member. This is not fed back to USA 

Weightlifting. The names and locations of those within the program is not shared 

internally. If there is a manner in which we can make it possible for an individual 

to come forward for support in a totally anonymous way we are absolutely supportive of that. 

Question 63. What percentage of the 2018–19 operating budget is earmarked for 

direct athlete support? 

Answer. I interpret the question here to mean direct cash to athletes, rather than 

support for athletes otherwise than in cash. 15.2 percent of our total operating 

budget was spent in this manner. This excludes direct athlete support in cash to 

the athlete which is provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

If we include items spent on athlete support otherwise than in cash, 33 percent 

of our budget goes to directly supporting athletes. This does not include any staff 

salaries but does include international event travel and support, recovery support 

funding, sports medicine funding, camp support and other forms of athlete support. 

While explaining those numbers, I would wish to point out that the manner in 

which USA Weightlifting makes its’ revenue is via Coaching Education, where we 

expend 53 percent of income back to the instructors and hosts of our coaching 

courses, which therefore takes a significant percent of our revenue. This is unique 

to our National Governing Body (NGB), as we are the only NGB to derive our largest revenue source from this area. 

Additionally, USA Weightlifting provides 8 National Events per annum which approximately $880,000 worth of business, which is an approximate break even. 

70 

Removing those areas of operation, the percent of ‘‘available’’ funds that is spent 

on athlete support rises significantly. Finally, our budget for direct cash to athletes 

has risen over 900 percent since 2012. 

Question 64. What is your current salary? And by contrast, how much money has 

the USAW committed to national team athlete support for the 2018–19 season? 

Answer. In 2018, my annual salary is $110,000. To compare, this is the lowest 

salary of comparable National Governing Bodies by revenue. 

By the end of 2018 in just a few short weeks, we will have spent approximately 

$836,000 on direct cash to athletes, excluding any non-cash services such as travel 

to international competitions, travel to camps, recovery services, performance services which are also funded by USA Weightlifting. The top stipend for a Weightlifting 

athlete is $4,500 per month (or $63,000 per year), plus any performance bonuses 

earned at competition. 

Athletes in USA Weightlifting can earn a monthly stipend, which we understand 

to be a leading amount within U.S. Olympic Sport, as well as bonus payments for 

medals and placement, additional to the Operation Gold payments available. 

Separately, USA Weightlifting offers an amount of funding for each funded athlete to use with. 

The above figures reflect items funded by USA Weightlifting and not those funded 

by the U.S. Olympic Committee. The U.S. Olympic Committee contributed a further 

$1000 per athlete finishing in the top 8 in the World across Dec 2017 to Nov 2017 

in direct cash support. 

Question 65. Can you provide further information about specific policy changes 

USAW has made to prevent sexual abuse and protect athletes at all levels of competition? 

Answer. (No answer provided) 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO PHIL ANDREWS

Question 1. To what extent are you personally—and your leadership and staff— 

actively engaging with both the Athletes’ Advisory Council and victims of sexual 

abuse to help direct your programming to stamp out a culture of abuse that enabled 

predators to target athletes? 

Answer. While CEOs and NGB Staff are not invited to engage with the U.S. 

Olympic Committee’s Athlete Advisory Council, we are active with our own 7-member elected Athlete Advisory Council within USA Weightlifting. This 7-member 

council includes both our USOC Athlete Advisory Council elected representative and 

our alternate representative. I personally attend every meeting of the AAC to interact with our athletes. 

While the majority of conversations and issues that we speak about at the USAW 

AAC level tend to focus on sport related items, particularly due to the large amount 

of technical change (e.g., body weight category changes), that has occurred in 

Weightlifting in the last calendar year, the AAC is empowered to comment and give 

feedback on any issue it so pleases inclusive of Athlete Safety. 

Regular contact with the athlete population, especially its’ elected leadership, is 

essential to creating a culture which is inclusive of the athlete, and gives the athlete 

the power to act in all areas of the NGB. For example, our AAC has a sign off on 

our selection procedure and any amendment must pass the vote of the entire AAC 

not simply one signature. 

Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are victims of sexual 

abuse to help direct your programs away from this widely reported culture of abuse 

that enabled predators? 

Answer. We are very fortunate in USA Weightlifting that, to the best of our 

knowledge, there is no athlete who qualifies for the Ted Stevens Act definition of 

‘‘elite athlete’’ who has suffered sexual abuse. However, there are members of our 

NGB with high levels of achievement who have. I have personally engaged with 

these individuals, both in person and electronically, in working through how we 

might put in place programs for the benefit of survivors and how we might take 

steps to stop sexual abuse in the future. 

In particular, we have implemented the Athlete Wellness Program as a direct result of feedback from survivors of sexual abuse present in our membership. Survivors have also given feedback on reporting mechanisms and publicity features of 

our website and communications. 

Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB? 

71 

Answer. USA Weightlifting attempts to put the athlete at the heart of everything 

we do, while also being mindful of our other constituencies such as coaches and 

technical officials. Many items that can be done to empower the athlete also empower the remainder of the membership. 

USA Weightlifting, as required, has 20 percent representation on Board and Committees and also has former athletes on staff at the organization. This helps to focus 

the mind on the needs of the athlete in decision making. 

Athletes are encouraged to reach out to staff, to AAC members, to Board and 

other decision-making powers to give their feedback and views. Our task is to ensure that decisions made are in the best interests of the organization, that means 

considering the view of the primary constituent of the sport, which is the athlete. 

We also hold regular open sessions with all athletes, including a once a month 

call for all-comers (Athletes, Coaches, Technical Officials), sessions at events, and 

even via social media where athletes, coaches and any other member can ask questions or make suggestions directly to the NGB leadership, specifically the CEO. 

Athletes (and other membership groups such as coaches or technical officials), 

must be able to give their view without fear of retribution or a negative effect on 

their career. Creating such a culture is challenging and is not made overnight, at 

its’ core it requires open, honest, communication. 

Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure that you are 

using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision making? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting already detailed some of these items in the above answer, in addition with 50 percent of more of our Board having experience as a highlevel athlete in our sport, it helps consider the opinion of athletes in making major 

decisions. It is also important that the voices of our elected athlete representatives 

are turned to regularly during those discussions. 

On the staff side, we employ former athletes (and former coaches) on our staff 

which together with their professional performance provides valuable insight when 

designing programs or making decisions which impact an athlete, coach or technical 

official. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, constant and open communication with 

athletes (and also with coaches and technical officials) is vital to understand the 

views, desires and wishes of those groups and how to balance those needs when 

those needs diverge—and ultimately to keep the athlete need front and center. 

Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between athletes and administrators? 

Answer. Trust issues have historically arisen between athletes, their coaches and 

the administration of a sport. This was certainly an issue in our sport, and one 

which we have taken great pains to try to address—some of the methods we have 

used have been detailed above. 

Our sport also utilizes objective procedures not only in selection to our national 

team but in every area possible. This allows us to build trust because it means that 

it is not possible for there to be a personal bias reason for an athlete not to be selected for a team, for participation in a program, or for their remuneration as an 

athlete. The same applies to coaches where it is again an objective program. 

At its’ core, as I’ve previously mentioned, is open and honest communication as 

regularly as possible with the different areas of a membership of the NGB, especially with the athlete population. 

Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who provide their 

opinions? 

Answer. Due to the fact that we utilize objective procedures in almost every area, 

it is almost impossible for there to be retaliation against an athlete. With that said, 

we do provide all members (including athletes), the ability to anonymously submit 

suggestions to USA Weightlifting through our website. We also provide anonymous 

surveys to our athletes (and to other member types) to provide opinions. 

Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created partnerships 

with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide examples. 

Answer. I am not currently privy to the partnerships created by the U.S. Olympic 

Committee, and therefore cannot comment in detail on this matter. 

Question 8. Do you currently employ a full-time staff member with sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe emotional, physical and 

sexual abuse? If so, please identify that person and their role. 

Answer. No, we do not. 

Question 9. Do you agree with Mr. Adam’s assessment of the culture within your 

organization prior to your tenure? 

72 

Answer. I would firstly point out that Mr. Adams’ testimony did not specifically 

refer to USA Weightlifting, though Mr. Adams is a former CEO of our organization, 

he was referring to all of the now 50 NGBs rather than one in particular. 

My tenure as CEO started in the last few days of December 2015, and I am not 

sure I would either agree or disagree with that assessment in the case of USA 

Weightlifting. While I am not certain that victims of abuse were actively discouraged from reporting abuse in any conscious fashion, it is fair to say that the NGB 

could have done more to make reporting mechanisms available to victims of sexual 

abuse and to raise the profile of sexual abuse issues in sport. 

Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific changes to address this ‘‘environment’’ that ‘‘discouraged victims from reporting abuse’’? 

Answer. Yes, we have implemented a significant amount of policies and procedures to provide an environment that firstly goes to lengths to prevent abuse occurring but encourages reporting of abuse. 

We have implemented reporting buttons on our website and made sure these are 

well communicated to our membership. We have also implemented an independent 

model for adjudication of ethics cases as well as non-sexual abuse cases in our sport. 

This unique approach means that in a smaller sport like ours there is no fear that 

favoritism or prior knowledge of the alleged victim or alleged abuser will have an 

effect on the outcome. 

USA Weightlifting also implemented a specific number on our phone tree to directly report abuse (and indeed, anti-doping violations). USA Weightlifting already 

had existing codes of ethics and anti-retaliation policies though these have been 

strengthened recently. 

Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your sport and community? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting has engaged in a cultural change program since 2015, 

to a culture that puts the athlete at the center of what we do. To be clear, that is 

not at the cost of either coaches or technical officials. The culture we seek to create 

at USA Weightlifting is one of servant leadership of our sport to serve our athletes, 

their personal coaches, our hard-working technical officials in a positive fashion. 

The biggest single item in that is constant open, honest and transparent communication with membership of all levels, but especially the high level athletes, larger 

club coaches and the personal coaches of those high level athletes. 

This includes everything from regular Q&As, to answering any question no matter 

how small, to giving full and frank explanations of a decision (even when that decision might not be popular, people will usually be much more positive with a degree 

of understanding), to publishing as much as you are able. For example, every quarter we publish our operating budget to our membership. 

Anything that can be seen by us at the National Office ought to be able to be 

shared with membership, short of any personal, confidential information such as information about an athlete’s medical or mental health care for example. 

Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or influence over athletes and 

their families? 

Answer. Repeating many of the items I have already highlighted above, the objective style of selection within USA Weightlifting does not give rise to a great deal 

of undue power of a coach or staff member over an athlete. 

Similarly, our national team programs are entirely optional. An athlete, using the 

unanimous vote of a committee, may be removed from a national team if they are 

no longer in the shape that selected them, but they cannot be removed for attitude 

or obedience. This also applies to personal coaches, who likewise cannot be eliminated for attitude or obedience reasons. 

These items put the pressure on the NGB and its’ staff to have positive interactions with our athletes and coaches, as oppose to commanding interactions with 

athletes and coaches. 

Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of members of 

your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and teach them the value 

of SafeSport programs? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting is proactively publicizing SafeSport information to our 

membership, and where we have information, to parents. We have also voluntarily 

participated in each and every one of the programs made available by the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s education department. 

As well as mandatory education requirements for covered individuals within our 

membership, education is made available to athletes and parents. 

USA Weightlifting, in common with other NGBs, has requested our membership 

system vendor to begin to collect parent-specific information in order that we can 

73 

better communicate directly with the parents of each athlete rather than sending 

information to the coach or the contact details of the minor athlete. 

Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the USOC to 

communicate their material to all of their NGB’s and on to the member clubs? 

Answer. No, they do not. 

Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or disseminate 

SafeSport information? 

Answer. A blended approach is necessary—utilizing website, social media and email communication tools to ensure that information is available to all areas of the 

membership. 

Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what steps does 

your organization take to enforce that interim measure with limited information? 

Answer. The U.S. Center for SafeSport imposes, does not recommend, interim suspensions, and delegates to the NGB to enforce those interim suspensions, this provides a challenge to the NGB since the process is not yet completed. 

In our case, since we are generally speaking about a limited number at a time, 

we can disseminate this information on a need-to-know basis (as at this time guilt 

is not yet established). 

USA Weightlifting has taken action where the Center has declined to taken an 

interim measure short of suspension. For example, we have taken action to prohibit 

a technical official from participation in Weigh-in while under investigation by the 

U.S. Center for SafeSport. This does not fully prohibit the individual from participation while under investigation for the alleged offence. 

Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for athletes to report 

misconduct—either physical, emotional, or financial? 

Answer. You can report abuse via buttons on the front page of our website, by 

phone, or in person. You may do so anonymously though in order for an effective 

investigation, we do request that anonymous reporters give as much detail as possible including any possible witnesses to said misconduct. 

Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those reporting 

channels? 

Answer. Our independent model of investigation means that conflict of interest is 

generally removed from the outset. In the case of Emotional & Physical Abuse we 

always use an outside independent investigator to further remove conflict of interest 

from either the alleged victim or alleged offender. 

Question 19. What direct action is your organization taking not only to identify, 

but also to remove coaches, athlete directors, employees, and officials who witnessed 

either emotional or physical abuse of athletes and did nothing to stop it or report 

it to authorities? 

Answer. Our primary focus at this time is to investigate and eliminate perpetrators of emotional and physical abuse of athletes. Seeking to identify and remove athletes, coaches or others who have witnessed and not reported this type of abuse has 

not been a focus of our NGB thus far. 

Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs to be able 

to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements? 

Answer. A major challenge for many clubs in our sport is that a building may be 

shared with many different sports, including non-Olympic governed sports. Therefore defining where requirements cover clubs, and individuals, and where they do 

not is not as clear as it would first appear. 

With that said, policies have clarified if you are a member of USA Weightlifting 

with exposure to coaching at the club level then these policies apply to you under 

the definition of ‘‘covered individual’’. 

Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you are directed to 

uphold and where do they apply to? 

Answer. Yes, we have specific requirements under the 1978 Ted Stevens Act, 1990 

Victims of Child Abuse Act and the modifications to those acts as per the 2017 

SafeSport Act. 

Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training centers? 

Answer. No, it covers any and all USA Weightlifting sanctioned activities, operations and clubs. For the benefit of the Committee, USA Weightlifting is not present 

at the Olympic Training Center. 

Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member clubs? Member 

events? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that protection? 

74 

Answer. As the leader of the organization, the CEO. 

Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional staff that are 

experts with survivors of sexual abuse? 

Answer. As a small organization, this is headcount and budget. However, a way 

to address in our size of organization is to give preference in hiring decisions to 

those who do have experience in dealing with those who are survivors of sexual 

abuse. 

Question 26. Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting has made our ‘‘banned list’’ public since early 2016, 

before any public calls for a list to be made public. 

Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from the USOC 

since the May testimony with regard to the NGB’s publishing accessible lists of all 

banned individuals? 

Answer. The U.S. Olympic Committee has requested data from our NGB regarding banned individuals, inclusive of those banned for reasons otherwise than 

SafeSport. For clarity, they excluded bans for field of play reasons (though USA 

Weightlifting does not have any field of play sanctions). 

Question 28. Do these ban list’s work? What could be done to best disseminate 

this information? 

Answer. USA Weightlifting makes these lists available publicly and specifically 

sends these lists to those who are sanctioning an event or club endorsed by USA 

Weightlifting. The banned list is easily accessible through the member tab of our 

website and includes those who are suspended for Anti-Doping or Ethical reasons 

in a central location. 

This could be further enhanced by a centralized banned list, which has been discussed at the U.S. Olympic Committee level, searchable by location, offence and 

sport. This database then ought to be searched by background checks inside and 

outside of Olympic sport. 

It is vital however, that those listed are those who are facing sanction at the end 

of the process, where guilt has been established for an individual. The best example 

that exists of practice in this area is the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency who have a long 

and well-established process for publication of sanctions. 

So far as the question of effectiveness, the issue is that a banned list requires an 

individual person to look at the banned list. Though our NGB, and others, take a 

proactive approach to inform gatekeepers of those who are suspended as well as 

sharing with key adjacent sports, fundamentally it requires a parent, club owner or 

other decision maker regarding an interaction to view the list. 

The single largest deficiency in banned lists is that they are generally not recognized by non-Olympic and Paralympic organizations. This potentially allows an individual who is banned in one sporting organization to simply participate through another sport organization that is not governed by an Olympic or Paralympic organization. 

Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for NGB member 

clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list? 

Answer. I am not aware of any specific consequences that the U.S. Olympic Committee would impose on a member club since that is a member club of the NGB, 

not of the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

However, such an NGB that allowed that to continue may face compliance issues 

with respect to their NGB obligations to the U.S. Olympic Committee and at the 

absolute worst, therefore, decertification under Section 8 of the Ted Stevens Act. 

At the USA Weightlifting level, the club would not be considered any longer a 

USA Weightlifting sanctioned club and would be removed from our sanctioned club 

list. Any athlete members would be moved to unattached. 

This also occurs if the head coach, or administrator, of a club becomes a sanctioned member, it will automatically invalidate and suspend the membership of the 

club also. 

Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong policies to 

keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC or individual 

NGB’s? 

Answer. This has been a constant narrative within the Olympic & Paralympic 

movement since the emergence of the Nasser case and the subsequent focus on this 

area. The USOC has made great pains to implore the NGBs to act to enforce sanctions. 

75 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

ANNE CAMMETT

Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act impacted your National 

Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and resource perspective? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating contributes money to support the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport and has allocated additional resources for U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport 

education. U.S. Figure Skating’s Staff Counsel is spending full time on SafeSport 

matters (education, case management and compliance). U.S. Figure Skating is in 

the process of hiring a full-time SafeSport Education Outreach Director as well as 

an administrative assistant to support the SafeSport program. In the meantime, two 

other senior staff members have added SafeSport educational duties to their responsibilities until the Education Outreach Director is hired. 

Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review cases, implement 

training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on how this is being implemented. 

Answer. See answer to Question 1 above. 

Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer 

cases that are not sexual abuse to the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. Only cases of suspected or alleged sexual misconduct are reported to the 

Center. All other types of abuse (physical abuse, emotional abuse, bullying, threats, 

harassment, hazing and willfully tolerating misconduct) are reported to U.S. Figure 

Skating in a number of available medias (telephone, online form, e-mail). Once an 

allegation of misconduct is received, it is forwarded and resolved by U.S. Figure 

Skating’s Ethics, Grievance and SafeSport committees depending on the nature of 

the alleged abuse. 

Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the others? What 

portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)? 

Answer. I’m not sure how U.S. Figure Skating’s total revenue compares to other 

NGBs. In 2017–18, approximately 6 percent of U.S. Figure Skating’s revenue came 

from the USOC. 

Question 5. Based on your NGB’s experiences in handling abuse allegations, did 

the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 

provide the necessary authorities to the Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address 

abuse allegations? If there are shortcomings, please identify them. 

Answer. As I stated during my opening statement at the October 3 hearing, I believe that the following measures are necessary for the Center to reach its full potential: 

Increase funding for the U.S. Center for SafeSport to provide more personnel in 

the areas of education, investigation and adjudication. Fulfilling the Center’s role 

effectively during these formative years is the key to establishing credibility and 

long-term viability. 

Create a coordinated SafeSport public awareness campaign that all national governing bodies can use and support in solidarity. This campaign should be created 

by experienced child-welfare professionals with a goal to educate athletes, parents, 

coaches and all who work with young athletes to be vigilant, informed and reactive 

to all forms of abuse. 

Provide a national database of banned and suspended persons, searchable by 

name, sport, state and region. 

Amend the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act to give subpoena 

power to the U.S. Center for SafeSport to provide more effective investigations and 

enforcement. 

Finally, at some point in the near future, expand the reach of the U.S. Center 

for SafeSport. Athletes within the jurisdiction of national governing bodies represent 

a small segment of youth sports participants in the U.S. A full commitment to ending abuse in sports must include children that participate outside the auspices of 

the U.S. Olympic movement. 

Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors regarding Larry 

Nassar’s sexual abuse under the guise of medical treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, expertise and access in one individual for a 

lengthy period of time was a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. 

Has your NGB updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 

happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has the 

structure of your medical staff changed? 

76 

Answer. While this question relates to circumstances involving gymnastics, U.S. 

Figure Skating does not have centralized medical providers. With regard to medical 

and sports science professionals who travel to competitions or participate in camps 

to provide medical support and/or education to U.S. Figure Skating team members, 

U.S. Figure Skating requires they meet the following standards prior to being assigned: 

(1) Must hold relevant license in good standing with the appropriate board certification for his/her specialty; (2) must submit licensing to U.S. Figure Skating; 

(3) must submit to a criminal background check; (4) must join the U.S. Figure 

Skating National Network and travel pool of medical providers; and (5) must 

be a member in good standing with U.S. Figure Skating, which subjects them 

to the jurisdiction of U.S. Figure Skating rules and policies. In addition, U.S. 

Figure Skating’s Sports Sciences and Medical Committee conducts an evaluation of all medical professionals after each event to which they are assigned. In 

addition, there is no single doctor or medical provider who is the U.S. Figure 

Skating ‘‘Team Doctor’’ or medical provider. 

Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, what policies 

and procedures have you put in place regarding access, retention and preservation 

of athlete’s medical records? Have you provided those policies to USOC? 

Answer. Since 2011, U.S. Figure Skating athlete medical records and other performance-related data is housed on an encrypted, digital platform. The athlete and 

only authorized individuals have access to an athlete’s account. The USOC is not 

involved in this process and therefore no such policy has been provided. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

ANNE CAMMETT

Question 1. First, I want to start off by saying I admire the bravery of the athletes 

who have come before this Committee previously to share their story. As a father 

and grandfather, I know that what happened to them is every parent’s worst nightmare. We live to protect our children, and it is disgusting to me that the individuals 

that they reported abuse to didn’t protect them. 

Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy organizations to have 

them review and suggest improvements to your policies and procedures to ensure 

with certainty that your athletes are protected from abuse? 

Answer. No other organizations except the U.S. Center for SafeSport. U.S. Figure 

Skating recognizes the need for expertise in addressing survivor advocacy and is in 

the process of hiring a SafeSport Education Outreach Director with a degree in psychology or social work and measurable experience regarding emotional, physical and 

sexual abuse. 

Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to determine and 

measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report abuse? How recently were 

these surveys conducted? 

Answer. Since 2001, U.S. Figure Skating athletes competing in international 

events have received post-event surveys that ask them to anonymously evaluate 

Team Leaders, medical providers and officials. The comment section allows for 

elaboration. This communication tool allows honest feedback and a vehicle to express any issues involving mistrust. 

Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes understand what 

type of behavior from coaches or other adults is inappropriate and should be reported? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating conducts SafeSport webinars, in-person presentations and requires a SafeSport Compliance Chair for each member club. Monthly 

SafeSport articles are featured in SKATING magazine and the Professional Skaters 

Association magazine. In addition, the Center is currently developing age appropriate training for younger athletes that U.S. Figure Skating is committed to promote to its membership. 

U.S. Figure Skating has also launched a new awareness campaign made to empower our young athletes (some who begin skating at age 3). The goal of the campaign is to empower and encourage young athletes to speak up when they suspect 

something wrong. 

The result is the U.S. Figure Skating ‘‘Your Voice’’ campaign, currently in Phase 

II. The campaign’s tagline: Your Voice is Powerful . . . Say Something. To a parent. 

To a friend. To a trusted adult. The campaign will be rolled out in 3 Phases. 

77 

Phase I: In their own words (video and print), Olympic athletes shared stories and 

gave advice regarding the six types of abuse and misconduct (physical, emotional, 

sexual; bullying, threats and harassment; hazing; willfully tolerating misconduct). 

Phase II: Athlete members of Team USA, the ISP, synchro’s DREAM program and 

the Athletes Advisory Committee agreed to be the first Athlete Ambassadors of the 

‘‘Your Voice’’ program. 

Each Athlete Ambassador selects two young skaters at their training rink for 

their positive leadership skills. After explaining the tenets of the campaign, the 

young skaters also become Athlete Ambassadors and are presented with ‘‘Your 

Voice’’ T-shirts. The young athletes also receive material to share with parents. 

Phase III (December): Club members are encouraged to become Athlete Ambassadors, showing their support by adhering free ‘‘Your Voice’’ stickers on their water 

bottles, phones, laptops, etc. For a minimal cost, customizable ‘‘Your Voice’’ T-shirts 

will be available for members to personalize and let everyone know their Club supports the power of Athletes voices. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

ANNE CAMMETT

Question 1. Currently, amateur athletes are only eligible for up to 10 years after 

their last qualifying international competition to represent athletes on NGB or 

USOC boards. Athlete advocates have called for this 10-year requirement to be relaxed, so that older, possibly retired athletes who have more professional experience, 

time, and resources, may contribute their expertise. Would you support expanding 

the eligibility? 

Answer. Yes 

Question 2. Provided that eligibility for athlete representation is expanded, would 

you support ensuring that the membership and voting power held by such amateur 

athletes is not less than 50 percent of the membership and voting power held in 

the board of directors of the corporation and in the committees and entities of the 

corporation? 

Answer. It would depend on the definition of an athlete representative. Currently, 

14 of 15 U.S. Figure Skating voting board members are athletes or former athletes. 

Question 3. Please explain any factors preventing you from changing your NGB’s 

bylaws to (1) increase the percent of athlete representation on your board, and (2) 

allow for older former amateur athletes who may have more professional experience 

to serve on boards. If there are no factors preventing you from making these 

changes, please explain why you have not or will not in the near future? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating bylaws can be changed by a vote of two-thirds of the 

votes cast of the Governing Council delegates present in person or by proxy at the 

annual meeting of the Governing Council in early May. 

Question 4. Please explain your NGB’s process for changing bylaws, ethical codes, 

and any other policies or procedures. 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating bylaws can be changed by a vote of two-thirds of the 

votes cast of the Governing Council delegates present in person or by proxy at the 

annual meeting of the Governing Council in early May. U.S. Figure Skating’s board 

of directors can make rules or change ethical codes and any other policies and procedures by a majority vote of the board throughout the year. The Governing Council 

may also change rules at the annual meeting of the Governing Council in early May. 

Question 5. Are you committed to making sure half of coaches at protected competitions are women? If yes, how do you plan to accomplish that? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating’s membership is majority female and the majority 

of coaches are female. 

Question 6. Given USOC’s oversight relationship with NGBs and since NGBs are 

required to follow guidelines and requirements set forth by USOC, would you agree 

that USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and how effectively they promote athlete safety? Why or why not? 

Answer. The USOC is responsible for monitoring NGB compliance with the NGB’s 

obligations as a member of the USOC, and has the authority to address noncompliance. 

Question 7. Would you support the Athletes’ Advisory Council having a vote on 

USOC’s Board? 

Answer. The AAC currently has three voting representatives on the USOC board. 

Question 8. Would you support the Multi-Sport Organization Council having a 

vote on USOC’s Board? 

78 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating would not object. 

Question 9. If the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to add an individual to its 

banned or temporarily suspended lists, what authority does your NGB have to independently take such action? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating bylaws and rules allow for members to be suspended 

or banned independent of other entities’ actions or inactions. 

Question 10. Is it true that if NGB membership is given up before disciplinary 

action is taken, you can escape being placed on your NGB’s disciplinary records? 

Answer. No. 

Question 11. How can banned lists—whether on NGBs sites or the Center for 

SafeSport’s records—be made more useful for athletes, parents, clubs? How in sync 

are the Center for SafeSport and NGB’s lists? 

Answer. Clear links to such lists must be available on each website. U.S. Figure 

Skating’s banned list contains a complete list of all U.S. Figure Skating members 

banned by U.S. Figure Skating or the U.S. Center for SafeSport; the Center’s list 

only lists those members banned since the opening of the Center in March 2017. 

Question 12. Where should individuals go for the most comprehensive list and information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members for your NGB? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating’s website—www.usfigureskating.org 

Question 13. Does the Center for SafeSport’s website have a comprehensive list? 

Answer. The Center’s list reflects only those U.S. Figure Skating members who 

have been banned or suspended for sexual misconduct since the Center’s launch in 

March 2017. 

Question 14. Does your NGB’s website have a comprehensive list? Please explain. 

Answer. Yes. The list has been published on U.S. Figure Skating’s website since 

2005. 

Question 15. If you become aware that a coach has been engaged in sexual misconduct, for example, would your first call be to law enforcement or to the Center 

for SafeSport? 

Answer. Law Enforcement 

Question 16. Do you ever rely on the Center for SafeSport for required reporting 

to law enforcement? 

Answer. No 

Question 17. Under what circumstances would you not call law enforcement at all, 

but only inform the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. Non-sexual and non-criminal matters would not be reported to law enforcement. 

Question 18. If you witness or receive complaints regarding grooming behaviors 

by a member, would you report that to law enforcement or only to the Center for 

SafeSport? 

Answer. All reports that allege behavior that could be construed as grooming 

would be reported to the Center. Law enforcement is also contacted depending on 

the nature of the alleged behavior. 

Question 19. Under what circumstances would or have you hired an independent 

investigator to investigate a complaint? 

Answer. An independent investigator would be retained if necessary to avoid a 

conflict of interest. 

Question 20. How many times have you personally called law enforcement, pursuant to your mandatory reporting requirements? 

Answer. None. I have not personally witnessed misconduct that would mandate 

that I report to law enforcement. 

Question 21. What specific penalties are in place for members in your NGB who 

fail to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement? How many times have you 

imposed such penalties? 

Answer. Members are subject to disciplinary action up to and including revocation 

of membership. In one case, a member was suspended for failing to report suspected 

child abuse. 

Question 22. Has your NGB developed explicit rules that reinforce the ethical line 

between coaches and athletes (i.e., no texting, including parents or guardians on correspondence)? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 23. Have you developed sport-specific educational or training materials 

to complement the more generic U.S. Center for SafeSport training materials? Who 

have you worked with in developing such materials? 

79 

5https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/Arbitration—HearingPanel-Cases/Section-10/2011/Robinson-v-USA-Taekwondo-22712.pdf?la=en&hash=31C1EF0B 

6376CA5D5C73BEF0598708EA9A9040F1 

Answer. Yes. Child welfare and counseling experts were involved in formulating 

U.S. Figure Skating’s Harassment and Abuse policy which was approved in May 

2000. In addition, U.S. Figure Skating’s Board of Directors, SafeSport Committee 

and Athlete Advisory Committee (AAC)—which include child welfare experts and 

athlete representatives—have reviewed and provided input on U.S. Figure Skating’s 

SafeSport Handbook. 

Question 24. Do you think it might be confusing to athletes for NGBs to have internal ‘‘SafeSport’’ programs and for there to also be a ‘‘U.S. Center for SafeSport’’ 

that is actually in charge of handling sexual misconduct? Can you commit today to 

changing the name of any existing internal ‘‘SafeSport’’ programs to make the distinction clear for athletes? 

Answer. While some might think it is confusing, SafeSport is not just ‘‘sexual misconduct’’ but also includes physical misconduct, emotional misconduct, bullying, 

threats and harassment, hazing and willful toleration. U.S. Figure Skating would 

not be in favor of changing the name of its SafeSport program. 

Question 25. At this Subcommittee’s last hearing on amateur athletes, Mr. Han 

Xiao, Chair of the Athletes’ Advisory Council testified that NGBs would intentionally circumvent athlete representatives. He recounted a variety of tactics including: 

• Appointing rather than electing athlete representatives to sign documents; 

• Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on file to sign documents; 

• Giving an AAC representative a document with very little time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature; 

• And scheduling meetings such that competing athlete reps cannot attend, or removing what the NGB perceives to a problematic athlete representative and 

then failing to refill the position. 

Some of these tactics were employed by USA Taekwondo and documented in a 

2012 Section 10 Complaint against the NGB.5

Have you ever employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine the authority and responsibilities of your NGB’s athlete representatives? Will you commit to 

ensuring these tactics are never used again in the future? How will you ensure this? 

Answer. To my knowledge, U.S. Figure Skating has never engaged in such tactics 

and our athlete board representatives and Athletes Advisory Committee would not 

tolerate such tactics. In addition, such tactics would be against U.S. Figure 

Skating’s Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct and would be subject to disciplinary 

action. 

Question 26. The USOC has argued, time and again, to be dismissed from lawsuits because it has ‘‘no control’’ over NGBs. In fact, the evidence shows that USOC 

actually exercises a significant amount of control over NGBs, like your own. Please 

describe what policies, procedures, or guidelines are provided to NGBs through 

USOC. Please also describe any financial support, staffing, or legal support received 

from or funded by USOC. 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating is governed by and receives its authority from the 

Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and USOC bylaws. In addition, the USOC outlines 

its various policies and procedures to be followed by U.S. Figure Skating in an annual ‘‘Performance Partnership Agreement’’ that also includes details of any funding 

received by U.S. Figure Skating from the USOC. Since 2005, USOC’s financial contribution to U.S. Figure Skating has amounted to between 2 percent and 8 percent 

of U.S. Figure Skating’s annual budget. Such financial contribution is earmarked 

solely for athlete support, either in direct payments to athletes or for programs and 

staff that support athletes. No funds are provided for legal support. 

Question 27. Before the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established, did your NGB 

have the authority to suspend or ban a coach? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 28. After the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s establishment in March 2017, 

does your NGB still have the authority to independently suspend or ban a coach, 

even if the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to do so? 

Answer. Yes. 

80 

6https://www.teamusa.org/usa-taekwondo/v2-resources/legal/usat-suspension-list 

7https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-child-abuse-is-se-1826279217 

Question 29. In August, the Center for SafeSport declined to defend its ban of 

Jean Lopez, a taekwondo coach it had determined, months earlier, was engaged in 

a ‘‘decades long pattern of sexual misconduct.’’ The Center then removed him from 

its database of sanctioned individuals. Despite this, Steve McNally, the President 

and CEO of USA Taekwondo, has kept Jean Lopez on USA Taekwondo’s suspension 

list.6 Do you think Mr. McNally’s decision was appropriate? Would you have made 

the same decision? Why or why not? 

Answer. I cannot cast an opinion without complete information, however, Mr. 

McNally appears to have acted on behalf of the athlete’s safety pending full results. 

U.S. Figure Skating has the authority to suspend or ban a member on its own accord. U.S. Figure Skating has never reversed a ban imposed on a member. 

Question 30. What consequences have and will you impose on member clubs that 

do not take your NGB’s banned and suspended lists seriously? Please explain what 

enforcement mechanisms you have. How often have you exercised such enforcement 

mechanisms? Please detail. 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating membership rules provide that any club can be 

placed on inactive or suspended status if it does not comply with all U.S. Figure 

Skating rules. Such inactive or suspended status means a club cannot host test sessions, obtain performance sanctions, obtain competition sanctions and loses its voting rights at U.S. Figure Skating’s annual Governing Council meeting. To U.S. Figure Skating’s knowledge, no banned or suspended member has been hired by a 

member club and therefore, no action has been taken against a club for this reason. 

Question 31. How regularly are background checks conducted on your members? 

Answer. Annual background checks are conducted on adult members in a position 

of authority over athletes or who have frequent contact with athletes. 

Question 32. There are criticisms that the term ‘‘SafeSport,’’ according to a 

Deadspin article, was developed and trademarked by the USOC to serve as ‘‘a pleasant-sounding euphemism for a horrible set of acts.’’ 7 How you lead by example, 

when it comes to making sure sexual abuse is not merely swept under the rug as 

‘‘SafeSport’’ issues? 

Answer. As stated in my testimony to Congress, in May 2000, U.S. Figure Skating 

instituted its first ever Harassment and Abuse Policy and a mandatory reporting 

requirement for all its members. This requirement stated that if any form of child 

abuse is observed or suspected by a member, the member must immediately contact 

local law enforcement or a public child welfare agency and make a report. In addition, the member must also make a report to U.S. Figure Skating’s Ethics Chair. 

The following year, another new rule mandated publishing the identity of any 

banned or suspended members in SKATING magazine, later moving a detailed list 

to U.S. Figure Skating’s official website (in 2005), where it still resides today. U.S. 

Figure Skating has acted promptly on every incident reported to it of suspected sexual abuse or misconduct since the new policy was enacted in May 2000. Since May 

2000, U.S. Figure Skating has banned 16 members for sexual misconduct, six for 

financial irregularities and two for ethical violations. 

Question 33. What does a pedophile or sexual predator look like? 

Answer. A pedophile or sexual predator could be anyone, anywhere. 

Question 34. In your experience investigating sexual misconduct complaints, I’m 

sure you often receive character witness statements from parents and athletes 

themselves. Have you found that there’s any correlation between such statements 

and whether the individual is actually guilty? How much weight should be placed 

in such character witness statements? Can you commit to reducing the weight—if 

any—that your NGB currently places on such statements during an investigation? 

Answer. Since March of 2017, the U.S. Center for SafeSport has exclusive jurisdiction for the investigation and adjudication of sexual misconduct cases, and therefore, 

U.S. Figure Skating has not been involved in such cases. 

Question 35. Do you agree that it is possible for an individual to be respectful to 

certain individuals, and abusive toward others? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 36. What is the process in which your NGB keeps its respective website 

and other publications up to date listing banned or temporarily suspended individuals by the Center for SafeSport? Does your NGB have a dedicated staff member 

update these lists? If so, what is the position title of said staffer? How often are 

these lists checked to keep current? On a daily basis? 

81 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating updates its suspended and banned list immediately 

after notice of a sanction is issued by the U.S. Center for SafeSport for cases involving sexual misconduct. U.S. Figure Skating has jurisdiction for all types of misconduct other than sexual misconduct. In situations where the sanction in other 

types of misconduct results in a finding by U.S. Figure Skating’s Grievance Committee that a suspension or ban is warranted, the finding is written by the Grievance chair and posted by U.S. Figure Skating’s Director of Communications. 

Question 37. I understand that arbitration is the general process used by the Center for SafeSport to address disputes. 

Answer. As I understand, according to the Center’s rules, arbitration is used only 

if an appeal is made of a decision imposed by the Center. 

Question 38. Who pays for your NGB’s attorney fees in arbitration? Is it supported 

in any way by USOC? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating would pay for any attorney fees, with no involvement by the USOC. 

Question 39. Who pays for athletes’ attorney fees in arbitration? Do you provide 

any assistance for athlete’s attorney fees? 

Answer. Unknown. No. 

Question 40. What assistance do you receive from the USOC when in arbitration? 

What kind of legal guidance does the USOC provide in such cases? 

Answer. None. None. 

Question 41. Arbitration proceedings can be re-victimizing for survivors, who must 

relive their most painful memories under a grueling cross-examination. Questions 

asked by the opposing side have reportedly included intimate questions about an individual’s personal sexual history. Do you believe such questions about an individual’s sexual history relevant? How so? Can you commit to barring any such questions from further arbitration or legal proceedings? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has not been involved in any arbitration proceedings 

and cannot speculate on what is relevant or not. 

Question 42. Former USA Swimmer and Olympic Gold medalist Nancy HogsheadMakar has noted that women are largely missing from leadership positions throughout swimming’s more competitive levels. While women represent just over 50 percent of coaches in the sport nationwide, a meager fraction of women comprise the 

elite ranks of the sport. As recently as 2016, the U.S. Olympic swim team had no 

female coaches. What, in your opinion, is the reason for the dearth of women coaching at Olympic levels, and other elite coaching levels in the sport? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has no knowledge of U.S. Swimming’s membership. 

A majority of coaches in figure skating are women, and half the coaches of U.S. Figure Skating’s 2018 national champions were women. 

Question 43. Do you believe that a lack of female coaches is problematic? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating does not have a lack of female coaches. I would not 

want to speculate on other sports. 

Question 44. Do you believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task Force, or 

other coaching summits aimed at female coaches is sufficient to actually reduce gender disparity at elite levels? Beyond these leadership resources, what is your NGB 

doing to change the culture that currently stifles women leaders within sport? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating is 73 percent female. This is not an issue in our 

sport. 

Question 45. Do you agree that more female coaches at an elite level would make 

athletes safer? 

Answer. I would not want to speculate on that. 

Question 46. The AAC has reported concerns that the Athlete Ombudsman does 

not act independently of the USOC leadership. Would you agree that the Athlete 

Ombudsman should be moved outside the USOC structure to an Office of Inspector 

General or another external office? 

Answer. In principle, yes, but I would want to first understand the structure of 

any external office. 

Question 47. Do you believe that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is sufficiently 

independent from the USOC? What conflicts of interest currently exist that prevent 

the Center from achieving true independence? 

Answer. While the Center is independent of the USOC in its investigation and 

education functions, a perception will continue to exist that the Center is not fully 

independent from the USOC until the USOC ends its funding or is not the Center’s 

principal funding mechanism. 

82 

Question 48. Do you think former employees of the USOC should be working at 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport? Do you understand how this would compromise the 

Center’s independence? 

Answer. In principle, I do not object, but I recognize the optics of a conflict of interest. 

Question 49. Would you support the creation of an Office of Inspector General office—like the oversight branches of Federal or state agencies—to independently investigate internal abuse, mismanagement or misconduct and promote efficiency and 

effectiveness at the USOC, U.S. Center for Safe Sport, and National Governing Bodies? 

Answer. In principle, yes, but would want to understand its authority and scope 

of powers before fully supporting. 

Question 50. Regarding health insurance for athletes, what criteria does your 

NGB use to determine which athletes receive paid health insurance coverage either 

through the NGB or USOC? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating determines which athletes receive USOC paid health 

insurance coverage based on the following prioritized criteria: 

(1) Team members from the 2018 Olympic Winter Games, February 9–25, 2018 

(2) Team members from the 2018 World Championships, March 19–25, 2018 

(3) Medalists at the 2017 Grand Prix Final, December 7–10, 2017 (highest 

ranked, by medal, athlete(s) receives the slot(s)) 

Question 51. What percentage of the cost of this health insurance coverage are 

your respective athletes or their families responsible for? 

Answer. In most cases, between 0 percent—10 percent with a minimal co-pay. 

Question 52. What percentage of your athletes receive health insurance through 

the Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI) plan (‘‘EAHI’’ is the correct term, not 

‘‘EHIP’’)? Does this program cover sports-or competition-related injuries? Does this 

program cover non-competition-related injuries? 

Answer. Approximately 17 percent of U.S. Figure Skating’s international pool of 

athletes are eligible for EAHI. 

EAHI covers non-competition related medical needs, but U.S. Figure Skating provides secondary accident insurance for most sports-related injuries. 

Question 53. Does your NGB terminate the insurance of athletes whose injuries 

may impact their competition status? If so, how much notice is provided to the athlete? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating does not terminate EAHI coverage of an eligible athlete during a season. Eligibility for EAHI is determined each season by written criteria. 

Question 54. Please describe any other NGB-or USOC-sanctioned health insurance 

programs available to member athletes and whether those programs are paid for by 

the NGB or USOC. 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating provides at its expense excess medical coverage for 

participants in figure skating events and practices sponsored, sanctioned and supervised by U.S. Figure Skating and U.S. Figure Skating member clubs. Select elite 

athletes also have access to USOC clinics and providers, based on a minimal copay. 

In addition, U.S. Figure Skating provides for accident and sickness coverage at its 

expense (including competition related injuries) for all athletes and delegation members while representing Team USA at international competitions. 

Question 55. Does this health insurance program provide coverage for mental 

health services? Do you believe that mental health services are important for athletes? Do you believe that it is or should be your NGB’s responsibility to provide 

mental health services and coverage for athletes? 

Answer. EAHI includes mental health coverage. Yes, mental health services are 

important to athletes. An NGB should use its best efforts to include mental health 

coverage within any coverage it provides. 

Question 56. Beyond insurance coverage, what mental health services does your 

respective NGB currently provide for athletes? Are these services available to all 

athletes under the NGB’s purview, or just athletes at elite levels? What can your 

NGB specifically do to improve your athlete wellness and mental health support 

services for athletes? 

Answer. Currently, for U.S. Figure Skating’s international pool of athletes, the following are available: 

• One-on-one consultations and ongoing access for identified athletes as named in 

the USOC approved high performance plan (typically Grand Prix competitors). 

83 

• One-on-one consultations at several high level summer competitions for athletes 

competing internationally. 

• Educational presentations for International athletes at summer camps and U.S. 

Championships 

• Ongoing discussion with professionals and coaches at various seminars 

All NGBs can promote athlete wellness and mental health support services for 

athletes by promoting existing educational programs such as those provided by the 

Centers for Disease Control and the American College of Sports Medicine. 

Question 57. What is the process for an athlete at your NGB to take advantage 

of these mental health services—for example, do they have to first notify their coach 

or an executive at your NGB? Do you think that in cases regarding mental health 

services, it is appropriate to require an athlete to first notify their coach or NGB 

leadership of a potential mental health problem before receiving treatment or assistance? Do you agree that such a policy places athletes in a position where they can 

potentially be retaliated against, or further abused? Do you agree that at the very 

least, such a policy could prevent athletes from coming forward to take advantage 

of critical mental health services? 

Answer. Identified athletes are assigned a USOC-contracted or USOC professional 

at the beginning of each season or may choose their own. Once introduced, they do 

not need to notify their coach or NGB. 

I personally do not believe it would be appropriate to have an athlete be required 

to notify a person in authority to receive any appropriate mental health care. 

Question 58. What was your NGB’s total budget in Fiscal Year 2017? 

Answer. Approximately $18 million. 

Question 59. How much (dollar amount or percentage) of the budget came from 

the USOC either directly or in the form of grants? 

Answer. Approximately 6 percent. 

Question 60. What percentage of your budget goes to direct athlete support in the 

form of a stipend? How many athletes receive a stipend? 

Answer. Approximately 6 percent. Approximately 60 athletes. 

Question 61. Does USOC have any role in budgeting decisions within your NGB? 

Answer. No. 

Question 62. Does your current NGB budget limit your ability to provide services 

to athletes? Does it limit your ability to implement and adhere to Center for Safe 

Sport policy, or to conduct thorough internal investigations on complaints of misconduct? 

Answer. No. No. 

Question 63. Does USOC have the ability to direct your NGB in making decisions 

related to Olympic competition? 

Answer. The USOC approves the criteria for the athlete selection process for the 

Olympic Games and subsequently those athletes nominated by U.S. Figure Skating 

to compete in the Olympic Games. The USOC has no other involvement with U.S. 

Figure Skating’s decisions related to the Olympic Games. 

Question 64. Does your NGB have a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy, so that an adult is never 

alone with an athlete? Why or why not? Have you considered such a policy? 

Answer. Yes, to safeguard the athlete. 

Question 65. Has USOC ever asked NGBs to consider a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy? 

Answer. I have been told by U.S. Figure Skating staff that the USOC first recommended a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy in a SafeSport handbook template distributed by the 

USOC to NGBs in the fall of 2012. 

Question 66. Most child-safety experts recommend a policy of not texting a minor 

individually. In other words, coaches can text others in a group, or can include parents on the text, but should not text athletes individually. Why hasn’t your NGB 

adopted such a policy to ensure inappropriate conversations are not taking place? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has such a policy as part of its ‘‘Two-Deep Leadership’’ policy. 

Question 67. One problem that I have continually witnessed during this investigation is that the USOC, the Center for SafeSport and NGBs have a tendency to put 

a fresh coat of paint on something, without actually resolving the problem at hand. 

We’ve seen this in new branding initiatives, which sometimes have euphemistic 

names to make it seem like an organization is tackling a problem. 

During your testimony, you mentioned a program U.S. Figure Skating has started, called ‘‘Your Voice.’’ You displayed a T-Shirt with the slogan during the hearing. 

84 

Is Your Voice just another way to put a fresh coat of paint on a problem with flashy 

branding to give the impression that USFSA is addressing abuse? 

Answer. No. The ‘‘Your Voice’’ awareness campaign is designed to empower the 

athletes themselves. One of the overriding issues in reporting sexual misconduct 

and/or abuse is the silence of the victim. The ‘‘Your Voice’’ campaign is designed to 

empower victims to report any sexual misconduct and/or abuse. 

Question 68. How specifically is the Your Voice campaign attempting to prevent 

abuse, or provide an avenue for reporting abuse? 

Answer. The very essence of the ‘‘Your Voice’’ Campaign is to empower athletes 

to use their voice to report abuse or suspected abuse. 

Question 69. How much is this new campaign costing USFSA? 

Answer. Although the dollar amount of the campaign is irrelevant to its effectiveness because of the use of volunteers and Olympic athletes to promote the ‘‘Your 

Voice’’ campaign, currently, about $14,000 has been spent on the campaign for the 

purchase of tangible products to be given out by volunteers to further promote the 

campaign: 300 T-shirts, 50,000 stickers and 1,500 posters. 

Question 70. Is USFSA changing any specific policy, or providing any financial resources to local clubs or elite levels to support this campaign? 

Answer. The goal of the ‘‘Your Voice’’ campaign is to empower and encourage 

young athletes to speak up when they suspect something wrong. The ‘‘Your Voice’’ 

campaign is currently in Phase II. The campaign’s tagline: Your Voice is Powerful. . .Say Something. To a parent. To a friend. To a trusted adult. A brief description of each phase of the campaign follows: 

• Phase I: In their own words (video and print), Olympic athletes shared stories 

and gave advice regarding the six types of abuse and misconduct (physical, emotional, sexual; bullying, threats and harassment; hazing; willfully tolerating 

misconduct). 

• Phase II: Athlete members of Team USA, the ISP, synchro’s DREAM program 

and the Athletes Advisory Committee agreed to be the first Athlete Ambassadors of the ‘‘Your Voice’’ program. Each Athlete Ambassador selects two young 

skaters at their training rink for their positive leadership skills. After explaining the tenets of the campaign, the young skaters also become Athlete Ambassadors and are presented with ‘‘Your Voice’’ T-shirts. The young athletes also 

receive material to share with parents. 

• Phase III (December): Club members are encouraged to become Athlete Ambassadors, showing their support by adhering free ‘‘Your Voice’’ stickers on their 

water bottles, phones, laptops, etc. For a minimal cost, customizable ‘‘Your 

Voice’’ T-shirts will be available for members to personalize and let everyone 

know their Club supports the power of Athlete’s voices. 

Question 71. Can you provide further information about specific policy changes 

USFSA has made to prevent sexual abuse and protect athletes at all levels of competition? 

Answer. My written testimony outlines what U.S. Figure Skating has done since 

2000. In addition, since the Center began in 2017, U.S. Figure Skating has: 

• Expanded required background checks to include all who come in frequent contact with athletes, such as U.S. Figure Skating employees, Board of Directors, 

medical providers, camp faculty, etc. This season, also included all volunteer officials, such as judges. 

• Hired Staff Counsel to administer SafeSport program, manage SafeSport reports and cases, and to act as U.S. Figure Skating liaison to U.S. Center for 

SafeSport. 

• Approved an annual minimum of $100,000 for additional SafeSport initiatives 

and education 

• With athlete guidance, launched grassroots awareness campaign (‘‘Your Voice’’) 

inspired and supported by the AAC and Team USA athletes 

• Implemented an online reporting form as a third mechanism to report abuse or 

harassment. 

• Automated SafeSport compliance reporting for those roles required to pass 

background check and complete SafeSport Training. 

• Updated U.S. Figure Skating’s SafeSport Program Handbook, emphasizing 

‘‘Two-Deep Leadership,’’ locker room and travel policies 

Question 72. During the hearing, when I asked whether you would voluntarily 

commit to increasing athlete representation to a majority on your boards and comVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
85 

mittees to ensure that their voices and concerns are heard, you answered that you 

would want to research the idea further. Two weeks later, can you now commit to 

increasing athlete representation to 51 percent on the USFSA Board and its committees? Do you believe that increasing the age eligibility for athletes, allowing 

older athletes to participate on the Board would satisfy your concerns with athlete 

experience? 

Answer. I stand by my testimony. With respect to athlete experience, currently, 

14 of 15 U.S. Figure Skating voting board members are athletes or former athletes. 

Changing the definition of an athlete would need thorough review. 

Question 73. What percentage of the 2018–19 operating budget is earmarked for 

direct athlete support? 

Answer. More than 80 percent of U.S. Figure Skating’s 2018–19 operating budget 

supports athlete programs. Regarding U.S. Figure Skating’s international pool of 

athletes and national team, approximately 17 percent of the annual budget is earmarked specifically for these elite athletes. 

Question 74. What is your current salary? And by contrast, how much money has 

the USFSA committed to national team athlete support for the 2018–19 season? 

Answer. I receive no salary as president of U.S. Figure Skating. As president, I 

volunteer an average of 30–40 hours per week to the organization. Athlete support 

is answered above. 

Question 75. Is U.S. Figure Skating currently spending money on any lobbying, 

or government affairs work? If yes, what are they advocating on behalf of? 

Answer. No. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH TO

ANNE CAMMETT

Question. Included in your written testimony is a policy suggestion for creating 

a national database of banned and suspended persons. In your view, what entity 

or individual is best positioned to develop, administer and enforce such a database? 

In your opinion, should such a database be shared with law enforcement, school districts or State governments? 

Answer. The U.S. Center for SafeSport is the entity best positioned to develop and 

administer a national database of banned and suspended persons. Any such national database of banned and suspended persons should be shared with as many 

entities as possible and available to the public. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO ANNE CAMMETT

Question 1. Athlete and Community Engagement: To what extent are you personally—and your leadership and staff—actively engaging with both the Athletes’ Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programming to stamp 

out a culture of abuse that enabled predators to target athletes? 

Answer. There are four members of U.S. Figure Skating’s Athlete Advisory Committee (AAC) on U.S. Figure Skating’s 15-member board of directors, which I chair 

as president. This ensures the AAC is actively involved in developing Athlete Protection policies. 

Most recently, the entire 50-member AAC was involved in the revision and updating of the U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport Handbook. Individual input and discussion 

were key in the process and resulted in a unanimous approval by the AAC, 

SafeSport Committee and board of directors. 

The AAC also has been an active participant in the U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport 

awareness campaign, ‘‘Your Voice.’’ In addition, the 50-member AAC (along with 

other U.S. Figure Skating athlete groups) is participating in Phase II of the Your 

Voice program, which has these role-model athletes selecting young ‘‘Athlete Ambassadors’’ at their own rinks to bring the message of the campaign to the grassroots 

level. (More on the awareness campaign in Question 3.) 

Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are victims of sexual 

abuse to help direct your programs away from this widely reported culture of abuse 

that enabled predators? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has an open dialogue with all athlete survivors. 

Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB? 

Answer. As stated in the answer to Question 1, the AAC has four seats on U.S. 

Figure Skating’s 15-member board of directors and is very active in committees and 

86 

working groups. In addition, the AAC is actively engaged in the U.S. Figure Skating 

SafeSport awareness campaign, ‘‘Your Voice.’’ The goal of the ‘‘Your Voice’’ campaign 

is to empower and encourage young athletes to speak up when they suspect something wrong. The ‘‘Your Voice’’ campaign is currently in Phase II. The campaign’s 

tagline: Your Voice is Powerful. . .Say Something. To a parent. To a friend. To a 

trusted adult. A brief description of each phase of the campaign follows: 

• Phase I: In their own words (video and print), Olympic athletes shared stories 

and gave advice regarding the six types of abuse and misconduct (physical, emotional, sexual; bullying, threats and harassment; hazing; willfully tolerating 

misconduct). 

• Phase II: Athlete members of Team USA, the ISP, synchro’s DREAM program 

and the Athletes Advisory Committee agreed to be the first Athlete Ambassadors of the ‘‘Your Voice’’ program. Each Athlete Ambassador selects two young 

skaters at their training rink for their positive leadership skills. After explaining the tenets of the campaign, the young skaters also become Athlete Ambassadors and are presented with ‘‘Your Voice’’ T-shirts. The young athletes also 

receive material to share with parents. 

• Phase III (December): Club members are encouraged to become Athlete Ambassadors, showing their support by adhering free ‘‘Your Voice’’ stickers on their 

water bottles, phones, laptops, etc. For a minimal cost, customizable ‘‘Your 

Voice’’ T-shirts will be available for members to personalize and let everyone 

know their Club supports the power of Athlete’s voices. 

Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure that you are 

using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision making? 

Answer. Since 1983, U.S. Figure Skating has had strong athlete representation 

through its AAC. In addition, (as previously stated) there are four members of U.S. 

Figure Skating’s AAC on U.S. Figure Skating’s 15-member board of directors. Most 

recently, the entire 50-member AAC was involved in the revision and updating of 

the U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport Handbook. Athletes have had and continue to 

have a strong voice in U.S. Figure Skating decision-making. 

Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between athletes and administrators? 

Answer. I don’t believe there are trust issues at U.S. Figure Skating between athletes and administrators. In my experience, our high-performance athletes are unabashed in sharing their views and directly offer opinions and suggestions. 

In addition, U.S. Figure Skating athletes competing in international events have 

received post-event surveys that ask them to anonymously evaluate Team Leaders, 

medical providers and officials since 2001. The comment section allows for elaboration. This communication tool allows honest feedback and a vehicle to express and 

communicate any issues. 

Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who provide their 

opinions? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has a policy prohibiting retaliation for reporting misconduct issues and for filing grievance complaints. 

Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created partnerships 

with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide examples. 

Answer. I am unaware of any partnerships. 

Question 8. Do you currently employ a full-time staff member with sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe emotional, physical and 

sexual abuse? If so, please identify that person and their role. 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating dedicates its Staff Counsel with assistance from two 

senior directors to our SafeSport program. In addition, U.S. Figure Skating is in the 

process of hiring a SafeSport Education Outreach Director. The ideal candidate will 

have a psychology or social work degree and clinical experience with victims of emotional, physical and sexual abuse. 

Question 9. Safesport: The Center for SafeSport must succeed. I think from all the 

testimony we have received during these hearings, and in many of my private meetings with survivors, advocates, leadership in sport including NGB’s, the USOC, and 

Safe Sport, we know that we must stimulate a culture of reporting. In 2017 testimony offered by Mr. Rick Adams, of the USOC, he said there was an 

‘‘. . .environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse. . .’’ at NGBs. 

Do you agree with Mr. Adams’ assessment of the culture within your organization 

prior to your tenure? 

Answer. I do not believe that U.S. Figure Skating has had an environment that 

discourages victims from reporting abuse. U.S. Figure Skating has mandated reportVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
87 

ing since May 2000 when it promulgated General Rule 1.03, which mandates members to report suspected child abuse to local law enforcement or a public child welfare agency. Anyone under the jurisdiction of U.S. Figure Skating who fails to report 

is subject to disciplinary action. In addition, U.S. Figure Skating has a policy prohibiting retaliation for reporting misconduct. 

Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific changes to address this ‘‘environment’’ that ‘‘discouraged victims from reporting abuse’’? 

Answer. See answer to Question 9 above. 

Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your sport and community? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating believes strongly in empowering the athletes themselves to protect against abuse and sexual misconduct. Our ‘‘Your Voice’’ campaign 

is reaching our youngest athletes, empowering them to speak up. 

Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or influence over athletes and 

their families? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has a decentralized training system. Athletes (and 

their families) select the coaches who train them. I believe this decentralized system 

diminishes the unhealthy levels of power that other sports face with a centralized 

training system and/or a national team coaching staff. 

Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of members of 

your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and teach them the value 

of SafeSport programs? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating conducts SafeSport webinars, in-person presentations and requires a SafeSport Compliance Chair for each member club. Monthly 

SafeSport articles are featured in SKATING magazine and the Professional Skaters 

Association magazine. Every member (and the public) has access to the SafeSport 

Handbook. Lastly, there is parent-specific training provided by the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport that U.S. Figure Skating promotes to its members. 

Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the USOC to 

communicate their material to all of their NGB’s and on to the member clubs? 

Answer. At this time, I am unaware of any such recommendations. 

Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or disseminate 

SafeSport information? 

Answer. With such a diverse membership, ranging from age 3 to 93, U.S. Figure 

Skating uses a variety of means to share SafeSport information: Social media platforms; organizational website; e-blasts; SKATING magazine; in-person presentations; webinars; in-arena announcements, public service announcements and rink 

boards (signs along the internal walls of ice skating rinks). 

Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what steps does 

your organization take to enforce that interim measure with limited information? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating immediately suspends the membership of the individual. In addition, we post the suspension on our public website, and we contact 

the member clubs in the region where the individual resides. 

Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for athletes to report 

misconduct—either physical, emotional, or financial? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating 

• Direct phone call to U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport Staff Counsel: 719.635.5200 

• Online reporting form: www.USFigureSkating.org/SafeSport 

• E-mail: SafeSport@USFigureSkating.org 

U.S. Center for SafeSport 

• Online reporting form: safesport.org 

• Phone: 720.524.5640 

All reports may be anonymous. 

Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those reporting 

channels? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has a rule and a process for members, leadership 

and staff to follow in the event of a real or perceived conflict of interest. In addition, 

U.S. Figure Skating’s staff counsel is the case manager for all reports. Staff counsel 

does not have any personal involvement in the sport and has no overlap with the 

competition or participation side of the organization. 

U.S. Figure Skating’s Ethics, Grievance and SafeSport committees are comprised 

of working professionals from the fields of law, medicine and child welfare. Each 

88 

sign a conflict-of-interest agreement that requires disclosure and recusal upon the 

majority vote of disinterested committee members. 

Question 19. Protection and Removal: What direct action is your organization taking not only to identify, but also to remove coaches, athlete directors, employees, 

and officials who witnessed either emotional or physical abuse of athletes and did 

nothing to stop it or report it to authorities? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating’s mandatory reporting rule, in place since 2000, and 

code of conduct hold all accountable. Failure to report subjects a member to sanction 

up to, and including, membership suspension. 

Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs to be able 

to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating clubs are led by volunteers. Sanctioned events are, 

for the most part, staffed by volunteers who serve a variety of roles with respect 

to the conduct of events. Compliance with all SafeSport requirements at all local 

levels, particularly with volunteer turnover and some volunteers only working single 

events, can create challenges. 

Also, the vast majority of ice rinks are private businesses that are not owned or 

operated by U.S. Figure Skating and its member clubs. 

Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you are directed to 

uphold and where do they apply to? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating adheres to USOC-directed Athlete Protection policies, the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Code and policies and procedures as well as 

federal, state and local laws. 

Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training centers? 

Answer. U.S. Figure Skating’s Athlete Protection policies apply at all U.S. Figure 

Skating-sanctioned events and activities. 

Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member clubs? Member 

events? 

Answer. See the answer to Question 22 above. 

Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that protection? 

Answer. All U.S. Figure Skating members are responsible for protecting our athletes. From a staff standpoint, U.S. Figure Skating’s Staff Counsel oversees U.S. 

Figure Skating’s SafeSport program, with oversight by U.S. Figure Skating’s 

SafeSport Committee and Board of Directors. 

Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional staff that are 

experts with survivors of sexual abuse? 

Answer. None. U.S. Figure Skating is in the process of hiring a full-time 

SafeSport Education Outreach Director who ideally will have a psychology or social 

work degree and clinical experience with victims of emotional, physical and sexual 

abuse. 

Question 26. Ban Lists: Susanne Lyons, former Acting CEO and upcoming Board 

Chair of the USOC, said in her hearing testimony before the House Commerce Committee in May, that she committed to looking into creating and enforcement requirements that ‘‘ban lists’’ be made publicly available. I know a number of your organizations do post those lists. 

Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization? 

Answer. No. U.S. Figure Skating has published its suspended and banned list 

since 2001. 

Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from the USOC 

since the May testimony with regard to the NGB’s publishing accessible lists of all 

banned individuals? 

Answer. We have been responsive to all requests for information from the USOC 

but no requirements have come from the USOC regarding the publishing of accessible lists of all banned individuals. 

Question 28. Do these ban list’s work? What could be done to best disseminate 

this information? 

Answer. Banned lists prohibit membership from U.S. Figure Skating, so it has 

been effective keeping those who are banned from participating in U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned events. The U.S. Center for SafeSport is the entity best positioned 

to develop and administer a national database of banned and suspended persons. 

Any such national database of banned and suspended persons should be shared with 

as many entities as possible and available to the public. 

Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for NGB member 

clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list? 

89 

Answer. I am unaware of any consequence based on a USOC directive. However, 

hiring a banned or suspended coach is prohibited under U.S. Figure Skating rules. 

The consequences are up to and including revocation of membership or suspension 

of a Club from participating in U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned events and activities. 

Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong policies to 

keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC or individual 

NGB’s? 

Answer. I am unaware of any demand from the USOC, but USOC bylaws require 

an NGB to follow all rules and requirements of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. If 

a member is banned by the Center or U.S. Figure Skating, that member cannot participate in any U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned event or activity and U.S. Figure 

Skating strictly enforces such ban. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

TIMOTHY HINCHEY III 

Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act impacted your National 

Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and resource perspective? 

Answer. Prior to the passage of the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse 

and Safe Sport Authorization Act (‘‘Act’’), USA Swimming had policies and procedures in place now required by the Act for: reporting allegations of child sexual 

abuse to law enforcement, adhering to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Code, reasonably limiting one-on-one interactions between minor athletes and adults, prohibiting 

retaliation, and notifying local swim clubs of any alleged Code of Conduct violations 

by a swim club member, among other things. 

Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review cases, implement 

training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on how this is being implemented. 

Answer. Since the passage of the Act, USA Swimming has hired a Safe Sport Coordinator, who shares certain responsibilities with the Safe Sport Senior Manager, 

including case review, training, education and outreach. However, USA Swimming 

generally has maintained two full-time professionals dedicated to these efforts since 

late 2011 (See USA Swimming Safe Sport Team Bios: https://www.usaswimming 

.org/articles-landing-page/2017/02/10/protect). 

USA Swimming also employs two lawyers, an education specialist, risk manager, 

background check program coordinator, and administrative assistant who dedicate 

a portion of their time to the organization’s Safe Sport program, including in the 

areas of case review, training, education and outreach. 

Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer 

cases that are not sexual abuse to the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. Yes, Articles 3 and 4 in USA Swimming’s Rulebook address the internal 

protocols and procedures used to investigate allegations that do not involve sexual 

abuse. USA Swimming has referred a limited number of cases that are not sexual 

in nature to the U.S. Center for SafeSport, including, for example, where there may 

be an existing or perceived conflict of interest. 

Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the others? What 

portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)? 

Answer. USA Swimming is among the top revenue-generating National Governing 

Bodies. In Fiscal Year 2017, approximately 13.1 percent of our revenue ($5,259,700 

of $40,074,817) came from the USOC. 

Question 5. Based on your NGB’s experiences in handling abuse allegations, did 

the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 

provide the necessary authorities to the Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address 

abuse allegations? If there are shortcomings, please identify them. 

Answer. USA Swimming embraces its obligations under the Act, and I am not familiar with any deficiency in the authority granted by the Act to the U.S. Center 

for SafeSport and NGBs to address abuse allegations. While USA Swimming supports the U.S. Center for Safe Sport and is fully committed to its success, we believe 

that the Center and NGBs must have sufficient resources in order to effectively exercise such authority. 

Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors regarding Larry 

Nassar’s sexual abuse under the guise of medical treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, expertise and access in one individual for a 

lengthy period of time was a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. 

90 

Has your NGB updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 

happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has the 

structure of your medical staff changed? 

Answer. USA Swimming does not allow one individual to make all medical decisions regarding an athlete; instead, there is collaboration among the USA Swimming Director of Sports Medicine, the United States Olympic Committee Sports 

Medicine Network, and the volunteer USA Swimming Sport Medicine Network to 

assess each case and provide relevant options for medical treatment. Athletes (and 

their parents) then make their own medical decisions and proceed in the manner 

they feel most comfortable. 

In addition, there is a rotation of volunteer medical providers from the USA 

Swimming Network that travels or provides coverage at our USA Swimming sanctioned events. This allows USA Swimming to have a diverse network of providers. 

Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, what policies 

and procedures have you put in place regarding access, retention and preservation 

of athlete’s medical records? Have you provided those policies to USOC? 

Answer. All USA Swimming medical records are housed in the USOC electronic 

medical records system (‘‘EMR’’) and have been since the USOC created EMR. For 

USOC sanctioned events, all medical documentation and medical care provisions 

must be documented in EMR. Access to these records are open to the health care 

providers who are providing coverage for that specific event. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

TIMOTHY HINCHEY III 

Question 1. First, I want to start off by saying I admire the bravery of the athletes 

who have come before this Committee previously to share their story. As a father 

and grandfather, I know that what happened to them is every parent’s worst nightmare. We live to protect our children, and it is disgusting to me that the individuals 

that they reported abuse to didn’t protect them. 

Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy organizations to have 

them review and suggest improvements to your policies and procedures to ensure 

with certainty that your athletes are protected from abuse? 

Answer. Yes, USA Swimming has retained Praesidium, a national leader in preventing sexual abuse within organizations (https://praesidiuminc.com), to review 

and evaluate the substance of our policies and procedures to ensure they are as effective as possible. This initiative was undertaken in direct response to feedback we 

received regarding our educational materials, including by survivors of sexual abuse 

within the sport. Our policies and procedures were also developed based on resources and feedback provided by the Child Welfare League of America, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children. 

Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to determine and 

measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report abuse? How recently were 

these surveys conducted? 

Answer. USA Swimming has not conducted formal surveys to determine whether 

athletes feel empowered to report abuse, but we have engaged with athletes on this 

topic through in-person meetings. For example, in April, I addressed our athlete 

protection program at the Athlete Leadership Summit, which was attended by 120 

swimmers aged 15–18. In September, I attended a Safe Sport Committee meeting, 

where a group of dedicated volunteers, including athletes, addressed various ways 

to enhance the organization’s athlete protection efforts and promote reporting. I 

have also had a number of face-to-face meetings with survivors of abuse and with 

our elite level athletes to receive feedback and share ideas. USA Swimming recognizes the value of expanding the sample size and demographics of those from whom 

it solicits feedback and will be pursuing additional opportunities to do so going forward. 

Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes understand what 

type of behavior from coaches or other adults is inappropriate and should be reported? 

Answer. Since 2013, USA Swimming has offered free Safe Sport athlete education. 

USA Swimming has also developed supplemental resources, including, for example, 

scenario-based trainings and activity books, to educate athletes on the types of behavior that are inappropriate and should be reported. Since May 28, 2018, USA 

Swimming has trained over 400 individuals—including coaches, athletes, and parVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
91 

ents—in in-person workshops offered at member club visits to the Olympic Training 

Center, Regional Coaches Clinics, and national programs. 

USA Swimming is also in preliminary discussions with one of our largest team 

management platforms to push Safe Sport content through team websites to team 

administrators and parents. This is a watershed opportunity for our athlete protection program, whose key audience is swim parents, even though parents are not 

typically members and therefore more challenging to reach. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

TIMOTHY HINCHEY III 

Question 1. Currently, amateur athletes are only eligible for up to 10 years after 

their last qualifying international competition to represent athletes on NGB or 

USOC boards. Athlete advocates have called for this 10-year requirement to be relaxed, so that older, possibly retired athletes who have more professional experience, 

time, and resources, may contribute their expertise. Would you support expanding 

the eligibility? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 2. Provided that eligibility for athlete representation is expanded, would 

you support ensuring that the membership and voting power held by such amateur 

athletes is not less than 50 percent of the membership and voting power held in 

the board of directors of the corporation and in the committees and entities of the 

corporation? 

Answer. It would depend on how the eligibility for athlete representation is expanded, but there are circumstances in which I would support athletes holding at 

least 50 percent of Board and committee membership and voting power. 

Question 3. Please explain any factors preventing you from changing your NGB’s 

bylaws to 1) increase the percent of athlete representation on your board, and 2) 

allow for older former amateur athletes who may have more professional experience 

to serve on boards. If there are no factors preventing you from making these 

changes, please explain why you have not or will not in the near future. 

Answer. There is nothing that prohibits more than 20 percent athlete representation on our Board of Directors or older former amateur athletes who may have more 

professional experience to serve on boards. In fact, a number of our newly-elected 

Board members are exactly that. 

Question 4. Please explain your NGB’s process for changing bylaws, ethical codes, 

and any other policies or procedures. 

Answer. The majority of bylaw changes are determined by a majority vote of the 

Board of Directors. Board policies are determined by a majority vote of the Board 

of Directors. Other organizational rules (including its Code of Conduct) generally are 

determined by a majority vote of the House of Delegates. Operational polices are 

determined by a majority vote of the staff Strategy Team (CEO, COO, CMO, CFO 

and General Counsel/VP of Business Affairs). 

Question 5. Are you committed to making sure half of coaches at protected competitions are women? If yes, how do you plan to accomplish that? 

Answer. We cannot guarantee that half of coaches at protected competitions are 

women; however, we are committed to putting resources and a framework in place 

to ensure that all women coaches can have the level of career development they so 

desire. 

Question 6. Given USOC’s oversight relationship with NGBs and since NGBs are 

required to follow guidelines and requirements set forth by USOC, would you agree 

that USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and how effectively they promote athlete safety? Why or why not? 

Answer. Yes, if the USOC is going to impose requirements on the NGBs, it has 

a responsibility to ensure those requirements are effective and are being met. 

Question 7. Would you support the Athletes’ Advisory Council having a vote on 

USOC’s Board? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 8. Would you support the Multi-Sport Organization Council having a 

vote on USOC’s Board? 

Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the Multi-Sport Organization Council 

to know whether or not it would be appropriate for the Multi-Sport Organization 

Council to have a seat on the USOC’s Board. 

92 

8 Although USA Swimming waits for a decision to be final before posting (e.g., the opportunity 

to appeal has expired), it immediately notifies the relevant club and Local Swim Committee and 

updates its online member database in order to ensure the suspension can be enforced while 

the appeal process runs. 9 Although USA Swimming waits for a decision to be final before posting (e.g., the opportunity 

to appeal has expired), it immediately notifies the relevant club and Local Swim Committee and 

updates its online member database in order to ensure the suspension can be enforced while 

the appeal process runs. 

Question 9. If the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to add an individual to its 

banned or temporarily suspended lists, what authority does your NGB have to independently take such action? 

Answer. It is my understanding that once the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the 

‘‘Center’’) assumes jurisdiction over an individual or matter, the NGB is not permitted to take independent action. So, the NGB’s authority to independently act is 

somewhat contingent upon whether or not the Center has exercised its exclusive jurisdiction over a matter. 

Question 10. Is it true that if NGB membership is given up before disciplinary 

action is taken, you can escape being placed on your NGB’s disciplinary records? 

Answer. No. USA Swimming has routinely pursued disciplinary action against 

former members. 

Question 11. How can banned lists—whether on NGBs sites or the Center for 

SafeSport’s records—be made more useful for athletes, parents, clubs? How in sync 

are the Center for SafeSport and NGB’s lists? 

Answer. Banned lists can be made more useful by improving accessibility, 

searchability, and providing specific, consolidated information (i.e., one list for all 

sports). Currently, USA Swimming is working with the U.S. Center for SafeSport 

to align differing practices 8 and ensure that our lists are in sync. 

Question 12. Where should individuals go for the most comprehensive list and information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members for your NGB? Does 

the Center for SafeSport’s website have a comprehensive list? Does your NGB’s 

website have a comprehensive list? Please explain. 

Answer. Individuals should reference USA Swimming’s published lists of suspended individuals for the most comprehensive list and information regarding 

banned or temporarily suspended members. The U.S. Center for SafeSport’s (the 

‘‘Center’’) list only contains the names of those suspended by the Center (dates back 

to July 1, 2017). There are currently some names of USA Swimming members published on the Center’s list but not USA Swimming’s due to USA Swimming’s practice of waiting for a decision to be final before posting and the Center’s practice of 

posting immediately upon imposition of a suspension.9 We are working with the 

Center to align these practices and anticipate that it will be accomplished shortly. 

Question 13. If you become aware that a coach has been engaged in sexual misconduct, for example, would your first call be to law enforcement or to the Center 

for SafeSport? 

Answer. It is USA Swimming’s practice to first contact law enforcement, then the 

U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Question 14. Do you ever rely on the Center for SafeSport for required reporting 

to law enforcement? Under what circumstances would you not call law enforcement 

at all, but only inform the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. Because USA Swimming’s first call is to law enforcement and not the 

U.S. Center for SafeSport (the ‘‘Center’’), we do not rely on the Center for reporting 

to law enforcement. However, where a matter is first reported to the Center and 

not USA Swimming, USA Swimming will rely on the Center’s representation that 

the matter has already been referred to law enforcement. 

Question 15. If you witness or receive complaints regarding grooming behaviors 

by a member, would you report that to law enforcement, or only to the Center for 

SafeSport? 

Answer. It would depend on the specific allegations. If the specific allegations involve possible criminal conduct or any obvious step towards criminal conduct, we 

would report that to law enforcement. 

Question 16. Under what circumstances would or have you hired an independent 

investigator to investigate a complaint? 

Answer. USA Swimming would likely hire an independent investigator to investigate a complaint of an alleged Code of Conduct violation under certain circumstances in which there wasn’t a clear, per se violation (e.g., the existence of 

criminal charges). 

93 

10https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/Arbitration—HearingPanel-Cases/Section-10/2011/Robinson-v-USA-Taekwondo-22712.pdf?la=en&hash=31C1EF0B 

6376CA5D5C73BEF0598708EA9A9040F1 

Question 17. How many times have you personally called law enforcement, pursuant to your mandatory reporting requirements? 

Answer. I personally have not reported to law enforcement, as complaints come 

in to our Safe Sport staff. 

Question 18. What specific penalties are in place for members in your NGB who 

fail to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement? How many times have you 

imposed such penalties? 

Answer. USA Swimming has had a mandatory reporting requirement since 2010 

(see Article 306 of USA Swimming’s Rules). There has been a circumstance where 

USA Swimming could demonstrate that two individuals affiliated with a USA 

Swimming member club knew of the alleged abuse and failed to report it. Based 

on the factual circumstances of that situation, both were subject to fine and an education requirement. In other circumstances, USA Swimming could reasonably foresee requesting a suspension or ban from membership. Further, now that the Protecting Young Children from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act requires USA Swimming members to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement 

within 24 hours (regardless of state law), we will work with law enforcement to ensure appropriate enforcement of the law, in addition to our rules. 

Question 19. Has your NGB developed explicit rules that reinforce the ethical line 

between coaches and athletes (i.e., no texting, including parents or guardians on correspondence)? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 20. Have you developed sport-specific educational or training materials 

to complement the more generic U.S. Center for SafeSport training materials? Who 

have you worked with in developing such materials? 

Answer. Yes, USA Swimming has retained Praesidium, a national leader in preventing sexual abuse within organizations (https://praesidiuminc.com), to review 

and evaluate the substance of our educational and training materials. Our policies 

and procedures were also developed based on resources and feedback provided by 

the Child Welfare League of America, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 

Question 21. Do you think it might be confusing to athletes for NGBs to have internal ‘‘SafeSport’’ programs and for there to also be a ‘‘U.S. Center for SafeSport’’ 

that is actually in charge of handling sexual misconduct? Can you commit today to 

changing the name of any existing internal ‘‘SafeSport’’ programs to make the distinction clear for athletes? 

Answer. It may be confusing to some athletes for NGBs to have internal ‘‘Safe 

Sport’’ programs and for there also to be a U.S. Center for SafeSport; however, USA 

Swimming is not able to commit today to changing the name of our existing Safe 

Sport program. USA Swimming’s Safe Sport program has existed for the past eight 

years and has developed considerable recognition among its membership. To change 

the name would likely result in greater confusion than what may presently exist. 

Further, Safe Sport includes abuse and misconduct beyond what is sexual in nature. 

Instead of making name changes, USA Swimming would support greater efforts to 

educate on and distinguish between the two programs. 

Question 22. At this Subcommittee’s last hearing on amateur athletes, Mr. Han 

Xiao, Chair of the Athletes’ Advisory Council testified that NGBs would intentionally circumvent athlete representatives. He recounted a variety of tactics including: 

• Appointing rather than electing athlete representatives to sign documents; 

• Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on file to sign documents; 

• Giving an AAC representative a document with very little time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature; 

• And scheduling meetings such that competing athlete reps cannot attend, or removing what the NGB perceives to a problematic athlete representative and 

then failing to refill the position. 

Some of these tactics were employed by USA Taekwondo and documented in a 

2012 Section 10 Complaint against the NGB.10

94 

11https://www.teamusa.org/usa-taekwondo/v2-resources/legal/usat-suspension-list 12https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-child-abuse-is-se-1826279217 

Have you ever employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine the authority and responsibilities of your NGB’s athlete representatives? Will you commit to 

ensuring these tactics are never used again in the future? How will you ensure this? 

Answer. Disenfranchising athletes in the manners outlined above is inexcusable, 

and they are not practices employed by USA Swimming. 

Question 23. The USOC has argued, time and again, to be dismissed from lawsuits because it has ‘‘no control’’ over NGBs. In fact, the evidence shows that USOC 

actually exercises a significant amount of control over NGBs, like your own. Please 

describe what policies, procedures, or guidelines are provided to NGBs through 

USOC. Please also describe any financial support, staffing, or legal support received 

from or funded by USOC. 

Answer. Expectations and responsibilities of National Governing Bodies are addressed in the USOC Bylaws. Additionally, there is a sport partnership manual that 

addresses a variety of considerations most applicable to elite athletes. About half 

of the USA Swimming National Team budget is provided by the USOC, and the 

USOC also provides significant human resources (e.g., trainers, nutritionist, etc.) for 

our National Team coaches and athletes, including on international team trips. The 

USOC does not provide legal support to USA Swimming. 

Question 24. Before the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established, did your NGB 

have the authority to suspend or ban a coach? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 25. After the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s establishment in March 2017, 

does your NGB still have the authority to independently suspend or ban a coach, 

even if the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to do so? 

Answer. Yes. USA Swimming has the authority to independently suspend or ban 

a coach for reasons outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the 

‘‘Center’’) or if the Center declines to assert its jurisdiction. However, it is my understanding that once the Center asserts jurisdiction, an NGB is no longer permitted 

to independently suspend or ban the relevant individual if the Center declines to 

do so. 

Question 26. In August, the Center for SafeSport declined to defend its ban of 

Jean Lopez, a taekwondo coach it had determined, months earlier, was engaged in 

a ‘‘decades long pattern of sexual misconduct.’’ The Center then removed him from 

its database of sanctioned individuals. Despite this, Steve McNally, the President 

and CEO of USA Taekwondo, has kept Jean Lopez on USA Taekwondo’s suspension 

list.11 Do you think Mr. McNally’s decision was appropriate? Would you have made 

the same decision? Why or why not? 

Answer. I am not familiar enough with the facts, circumstances, and processes at 

issue in this scenario to draw conclusions of its appropriateness and whether or not 

I would do the same thing. 

Question 27. What consequences have and will you impose on member clubs that 

do not take your NGB’s banned and suspended lists seriously? Please explain what 

enforcement mechanisms you have. How often have you exercised such enforcement 

mechanisms? Please detail. 

Answer. USA Swimming’s rules explicitly prohibit member clubs and coaches 

from allowing any suspended individual to coach or instruct athletes, from aiding 

or abetting the coaching or instruction of athletes, or for allowing such individuals 

to have an ownership interest in a USA Swimming club (See Article 304.3.10 of 

USA Swimming’s Rules). To date, we have been able to clearly communicate our expectations to affected member clubs and have not had to enforce these provisions. 

Question 28. How regularly on background checks conducted on your members? 

Answer. Monthly background checks are conducted on non-athlete members. 

Question 29. There are criticisms that the term ‘‘SafeSport,’’ according to a 

Deadspin article, was developed and trademarked by the USOC to serve as ‘‘a pleasant-sounding euphemism for a horrible set of acts.’’ 12 How you lead by example, 

when it comes to making sure sexual abuse is not merely swept under the rug as 

‘‘SafeSport’’ issues? 

Answer. During a meeting with a survivor, she brought this same issue to my attention and underscored the need to call it what it was—child sexual abuse. Since 

that time, I have made a conscientious effort to use those words as often as possible 

and have encouraged my staff to do the same. 

Question 30. What does a pedophile or sexual predator look like? 

95 

13 Although USA Swimming waits for a decision to be final before posting (e.g., the opportunity to appeal has expired), it immediately notifies the relevant club and Local Swim Committee and updates its online member database in order to ensure the suspension can be enforced while the appeal process runs. 

Answer. As I’m sure you know, you can’t identify a pedophile or sexual predator 

by the way they look. They are young and old, men and women, of all ethnic groups 

and backgrounds, and often look like a ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘nice’’ person. 

Question 31. In your experience investigating sexual misconduct complaints, I’m 

sure you often receive character witness statements from parents and athletes 

themselves. Have you found that there’s any correlation between such statements 

and whether the individual is actually guilty? How much weight should be placed 

in such character witness statements? Can you commit to reducing the weight—if 

any—that your NGB currently places on such statements during an investigation? 

Answer. USA Swimming has not found that there is any correlation between character statements and whether the individual has engaged in the alleged misconduct. 

USA Swimming has regularly and effectively argued that such statements should 

be given limited, if any, weight. 

Question 32. Do you agree that it is possible for an individual to be respectful to 

certain individuals, and abusive toward others? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 33. What is the process in which your NGB keeps its respective website 

and other publications up to date listing banned or temporarily suspended individuals by the Center for SafeSport? Does your NGB have a dedicated staff member 

update these lists? If so, what is the position title of said staffer? How often are 

these lists checked to keep current? On a daily basis? 

Answer. Once USA Swimming receives information from the U.S. Center for Safe 

Sport (the ‘‘Center’’) regarding an individual’s ban or suspension, USA Swimming’s 

Safe Sport Coordinator updates USA Swimming’s list. The lists are updated in real 

time; however, there are currently some names of USA Swimming members published on the Center’s list but not USA Swimming’s due to USA Swimming’s practice of waiting for a decision to be final before posting 13 and the Center’s practice 

of posting immediately upon imposition of a suspension. We are working with the 

Center to align these practices and anticipate that it will be accomplished shortly. 

Question 34. Who pays for your NGB’s attorney fees in arbitration? Is it supported 

in any way by USOC? 

Answer. USA Swimming pays for its attorney fees in arbitration and does not receive any financial support from the USOC in connection therewith. 

Question 35. Who pays for athletes’ attorney fees in arbitration? Do you provide 

any assistance for athlete’s attorney fees? 

Answer. Athletes are not a party to Safe Sport-related arbitrations. Instead, USA 

Swimming acts as the complaining party against the accused respondent. 

Question 36. What assistance do you receive from the USOC when in arbitration? 

What kind of legal guidance does the USOC provide in such cases? 

Answer. None. 

Question 37. Arbitration proceedings can be re-victimizing for survivors, who must 

relive their most painful memories under a grueling cross-examination. Questions 

asked by the opposing side have reportedly included intimate questions about an individual’s personal sexual history. Do you believe such questions about an individual’s sexual history relevant? How so? Can you commit to barring any such questions from further arbitration or legal proceedings? 

Answer. I do not believe such questions about an individual’s sexual history are 

relevant, and that line of questioning has been objected to and disallowed in USA 

Swimming hearing proceedings. 

Question 38. Former USA Swimmer and Olympic Gold medalist Nancy HogsheadMakar has noted that women are largely missing from leadership positions throughout swimming’s more competitive levels. While women represent just over 50 percent of coaches in the sport nationwide, a meager fraction of women comprise the 

elite ranks of the sport. As recently as 2016, the U.S. Olympic swim team had no 

female coaches. What, in your opinion, is the reason for the dearth of women coaching at Olympic levels, and other elite coaching levels in the sport? 

Answer. USA Swimming has over 50 percent female coaches in its membership; 

however, the percentage is far lower at the elite level. Like a number of other industries and professions, the culture and lifestyle of elite level coaching does not always 

lend itself to balance, and many women opt out to pursue other opportunities, including raising a family. Additionally, it seems that even the best female coaches 

96 

in the country have to work harder to earn the respect of others. Therefore, we are 

working to change the culture of elite level coaching and provide opportunities and 

support to female coaches who want to pursue that opportunity. 

Question 39. Do you believe that a lack of female coaches is problematic? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 40. Do you believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task Force, or 

other coaching summits aimed at female coaches is sufficient to actually reduce gender disparity at elite levels? Beyond these leadership resources, what is your NGB 

doing to change the culture that currently stifles women leaders within sport? 

Answer. I do not believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task Force or similar 

summit is sufficient to reduce gender disparity at elite levels, but it is a start and 

it gives female coaches a support system. We have also recently brought on a consultant in this area, Susan Teeter, who was the women’s swimming coach at Princeton for over 30 years, in order to help develop programs to improve in this area. 

USA recognizes the need to do more in this space and we will continue to look for 

ways to progress. 

Question 41. Do you agree that more female coaches at an elite level would make 

athletes safer? 

Answer. More female coaches at an elite level may positively change the training 

and competing environments and/or encourage some athletes to raise concerns they 

have. 

Question 42. The AAC has reported concerns that the Athlete Ombudsman does 

not act independently of the USOC leadership. Would you agree that the Athlete 

Ombudsman should be moved outside the USOC structure to an Office of Inspector 

General or another external office? 

Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of these concerns, I can appreciate how they could arise and would support a change in structure that enabled 

the Athlete Ombudsman to do her/his job as effectively as possible. 

Question 43. Do you believe that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is sufficiently 

independent from the USOC? What conflicts of interest currently exist that prevent 

the Center from achieving true independence? 

Answer. No, I don’t believe that the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the ‘‘Center’) is 

completely independent from the USOC due in large part to the Center receiving 

the majority of its funding from the USOC. However, in the absence of other meaningful funding sources, I think it is more important that the Center has the resources to exist and operate effectively. 

Question 44. Do you think former employees of the USOC should be working at 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport? Do you understand how this would compromise the 

Center’s independence? 

Answer. I appreciate the concerns regarding employees of the USOC working at 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport; however, I support putting the most effective staff 

in place, regardless of whether or not that includes prior employment at the USOC. 

Question 45. Would you support the creation of an Office of Inspector General office—like the oversight branches of Federal or state agencies—to independently investigate internal abuse, mismanagement or misconduct and promote efficiency and 

effectiveness at the USOC, U.S. Center for Safe Sport, and National Governing Bodies? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 46. Regarding health insurance for athletes, what criteria does your 

NGB use to determine which athletes receive paid health insurance coverage either 

through the NGB or USOC? What percentage of the cost of this health insurance 

coverage are your respective athletes or their families responsible for? 

Answer. USA Swimming and the USOC provide the Elite Athlete Health Insurance (‘‘EAHI’’) program opportunity to all National Team athletes. This enables all 

National Team athletes to have access to health, vision, and dental coverage and 

access to a nationwide database of providers to aid in their health care. In addition, 

EAHI enables access to the USOC National Medical Network (NMN), which provides flights and accommodations to any of the USOC Olympic Training Centers for 

evaluation and treatment for any illness or injury. If additional subspecialty evaluation/treatment is needed, athletes will be referred to those providers at no cost. 

Within the last two years, the USOC and USA Swimming has agreed to extend 

this service to former Olympians and National Team athletes who incurred an injury and are not training and those who are training through an injury but fell out 

of the ‘‘National Team’’ category due to the injury. In a few cases, we have also extended the program to Junior Team athletes who incurred unique injuries, so that 

97 

they did not have to search for medical specialist on their own to receive a proper 

diagnosis and treatment. 

Finally, beginning with the 2016 Olympic Team, we offer the Olympic team insurance for a year after each Games regardless of whether or not they are training or 

competing. 

Athletes are only responsible for paying taxes on the USOC EAHI. 

Question 47. What percentage of your athletes receive health insurance through 

the Elite Health Insurance Plan (EHIP)? Does this program cover sports-or competition-related injuries? Does this program cover non-competition-related injuries? 

Answer. The majority of USA Swimming’s National Team and professional athletes receive Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI) through the USOC and USA 

Swimming. Although EAHI does not cover all sports-or competition-related injuries, 

supplemental coverage is provided by USA Swimming. The EAHI program covers 

non-competition-related injuries. 

Question 48. Does your NGB terminate the insurance of athletes whose injuries 

may impact their competition status? If so, how much notice is provided to the athlete? 

Answer. If USA Swimming is aware of an athlete’s injury, we try to keep them 

on EAHI as long as possible; however, if an athlete’s insurance is terminated, they 

are given at least one months’ notice. 

Question 49. Please describe any other NGB-or USOC-sanctioned health insurance 

programs available to member athletes and whether those programs are paid for by 

the NGB or USOC. 

Answer. In addition to EAHI, USA Swimming’s Injury Claims Insurance has allowed member athletes who have been injured while training or competing to use 

its services to cover doctors’ visits, physical therapy, and/or medical imaging that, 

without this service, they would have had to pay for or claim under personal policies. 

In addition, in these types of cases we can refer members to our ‘‘Senior Physician 

Network,’’ which is a small group of Primary Care, Orthopedic, Cardiology, Neurology, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, and Pulmonology physicians who have 

been subject to a background check and had their medical credentials reviewed and 

verified. These physicians are then able to review cases and refer them to regional 

colleagues, as appropriate. This senior group of physicians are recognized by their 

peers as experts in their respective fields of medicine and are a tremendous asset 

to USA Swimming. 

Both of these programs have greatly benefited USA Swimming members, especially those families who don’t have medical insurance and older athletes who are 

no longer covered under their undergraduate institutions’ or parents’ coverage. 

Question 50. Does this health insurance program provide coverage for mental 

health services? Do you believe that mental health services are important for athletes? Do you believe that it is or should be your NGB’s responsibility to provide 

mental health services and coverage for athletes? 

Answer. Yes, EAHI provides coverage for mental health services. USA Swimming 

recognizes that mental health services are critically important for athletes and that 

it is our responsibility to provide such services for athletes. 

Question 51. Beyond insurance coverage, what mental health services does your 

respective NGB currently provide for athletes? Are these services available to all 

athletes under the NGB’s purview, or just athletes at elite levels? What can your 

NGB specifically do to improve your athlete wellness and mental health support 

services for athletes? 

Answer. Mental health services was the number one request from our 2016 Olympic Team, as well as the membership as a whole at the 2016 annual U.S. Aquatics 

Sports Conference. As a result, USA Swimming has developed a three-pronged approach: 

a. Provide a licensed psychologist at all Gold Medal Meets and any training camp 

hosted at an Olympic training center. Ideally, we would like to expand this 

service to more international meets and are in the process of creating a network of providers that have passed both the USA Swimming background 

screen and the USOC medical credential/background screen to aid. 

b. Create a Task Force, consisting of a sport psychologist, social workers, medical 

providers, and three former National team athletes to create the best services 

and resources for all registered members. Two of the former National Team 

athletes on the Task Force have either received or are in the process of completing their post graduate degrees in the field of mental health. 

98 

c. Continue to engage with our membership on the topic. For the past two years 

we have presented at the annual convention on our current efforts and solicited 

feedback from all attendees on how we can structure mental health services to 

address the needs of our registered members and improve/enhance or create resources requested. 

USA Swimming will also be hiring a full-time dedicated staff member in 2019 to 

focus exclusively on athlete and coach mental health. 

Question 52. What is the process for an athlete at your NGB to take advantage 

of these mental health services—for example, do they have to first notify their coach 

or an executive at your NGB? Do you think that in cases regarding mental health 

services, it is appropriate to require an athlete to first notify their coach or NGB 

leadership of a potential mental health problem before receiving treatment or assistance? Do you agree that such a policy places athletes in a position where they can 

potentially be retaliated against, or further abused? Do you agree that at the very 

least, such a policy could prevent athletes from coming forward to take advantage 

of critical mental health services? 

Answer. An athlete’s ability to take advantage of mental health services is not 

conditioned upon them notifying their coach or anyone at USA Swimming. Such a 

requirement would be inappropriate. 

Question 53. What was your NGB’s total budget in Fiscal Year 2017? Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, USA Swimming’s total revenue was $40,074,817 and expenses were $38,006,170 

Question 54. How much (dollar amount or percentage) of the budget came from 

the USOC either directly or in the form of grants? Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, $5,259,700 or 13.1 percent of total revenue came 

from the USOC. 

Question 55. What percentage of your budget goes to direct athlete support in the 

form of a stipend? How many athletes receive a stipend? 

Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, direct athlete support (including stipends) totaled $2,897,000 or 36.3 percent of National Team expenses ($7,983,203). Seventy-nine 

athletes received stipends totaling $1,307,524, which is 3.4 percent of the organization’s total expenses and 16.4 percent of the National Team’s total expenses. 

Question 56. Does USOC have any role in budgeting decisions within your NGB? 

Answer. The USOC does not have a formal role in budgeting decisions within 

USA Swimming. 

Question 57. Does your current NGB budget limit your ability to provide services 

to athletes? Does it limit your ability to implement and adhere to Center for Safe 

Sport policy, or to conduct thorough internal investigations on complaints of misconduct? 

Answer. Although USA Swimming could always do more with a larger budget, our 

current budget does not limit our ability to provide services to athletes or implement 

and adhere to U.S. Center for SafeSport policy or conduct thorough investigations 

on complaints of misconduct. 

Question 58. Does USOC have the ability to direct your NGB in making decisions 

related to Olympic competition? 

Answer. With respect to Olympic Team selection, the USOC approves team selection procedures, but USA Swimming conducts the U.S. Olympic Team Trials and 

selects the Olympic team. When we are on the ground at the Olympic Games, the 

USOC coordinates much of the logistical planning, and we take advantage of the 

services they are uniquely able to provide as a National Olympic Committee. 

Question 59. Does your NGB have a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy, so that an adult is never 

alone with an athlete? Why or why not? Have you considered such a policy? 

Answer. Yes, this policy, in addition to a policy addressing open and observable 

environments is included in USA Swimming’s Best Practice Guidelines, which were 

developed in 2010 and are publicly available at https://www.usaswimming.org/ 

docs/default-source/safe-sportdocuments/club-toolkit/1.-policies-and-guidelines/ 

best-practices_general-safe-sport.pdf. 

Question 60. Has USOC ever asked NGBs to consider a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy? 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

Question 61. Most child-safety experts recommend a policy of not texting a minor 

individually. In other words, coaches can text others in a group, or can include parents on the text, but should not text athletes individually. Why hasn’t your NGB 

adopted such a policy to ensure inappropriate conversations are not taking place? 

Answer. USA Swimming’s Model Policy: Electronic Communication was created as 

a resource for clubs in 2012 and addresses this concern. USA Swimming’s Rules reVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
99 

quire member clubs to have an electronic communications policy and provide that 

in the absence of one, USA Swimming’s model policy is the default. The policy is 

publicly available at https://www.usaswimming.org/docs/default-source/temp/safesport/reporting/model-policy_electronic-communication.pdf. 

Question 62. To the best of your knowledge, does the U.S. Center for SafeSport 

operate a ‘‘flagged list’’ of individuals that is aware of that have committed sexual 

misconduct, but not have been members at the time? Has USA Swimming ever operated such a list? How is this list operated and updated? 

Answer. USA Swimming does not maintain a ‘‘flagged list’’ of individuals. Rather, 

USA Swimming has an established practice of creating non-member records to include in its member database for certain people who should be ineligible for membership. USA Swimming has approximately 300 of such non-member records that 

have blocks to prevent the individual from registering with USA Swimming without 

a review by headquarters. A block is placed on a non-member record due to (1) 

international doping control violation; (2) failure to pass a background check; or (3) 

report made to USA Swimming that would constitute a Code of Conduct violation 

if the individual were under the jurisdiction of USA Swimming. 

USA Swimming retains jurisdiction over individuals who violated its rules while 

members, so whether or not an individual is a member at the time the organization 

learns of the misconduct is irrelevant. 

The U.S. Center for SafeSport has a similar process for those circumstances involving sexual misconduct, which it refers to as an ‘‘administrative hold.’’ 

Question 63. If a USA Swimming member were to resign or otherwise give up 

membership before it is found out that he or she is guilty of sexual misconduct, 

would that former member be added to the USA Swimming’s banned or suspended 

list? Why or why not? Or would that member just be added to USA Swimming’s 

‘‘flagged list’’? 

Answer. USA Swimming retains jurisdiction over individuals who violated its 

rules while members, so whether or not an individual is a member at the time the 

organization learns of the misconduct is irrelevant. 

Question 64. What is the purpose for not publishing the names of individuals on 

USA Swimming’s ‘‘flagged list’’? Can you commit to publishing these names moving 

forward on your website, as you do individuals on your or the Center for SafeSport’s 

banned or temporarily suspended list? 

Answer. USA Swimming publishes the names of individuals who have been 

banned or suspended for violating the organization’s rules. There has been no finding of a USA Swimming rule violation (nor could there be based on jurisdictional 

issues) for those who have had non-member records created in order to prevent 

them from subsequently joining the organization. Further, the information USA 

Swimming receives in order to create and block a non-member record is already 

publicly available. 

Question 65. If a USA Swimming member were to resign or otherwise give up 

membership before it is found out that he or she is guilty of sexual misconduct, 

could that former member be added to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s banned or 

temporarily suspended list? 

Answer. Yes, like USA Swimming, the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the ‘‘Center’’) 

retains jurisdiction over individuals who violated USA Swimming’s rules while 

members, so whether or not an individual is a member at the time the Center 

learns of the misconduct is irrelevant. 

Question 66. During the hearing, you committed to following up on the cases regarding former USA Swimming coaches Paul Bergen and Norm Havercroft. Please 

provide any update you have on their case. Please explain any disciplinary action 

taken against members on this list. 

Answer. The information USA Swimming possesses regarding these cases is being 

shared with the U.S. Center for SafeSport now that it has exclusive jurisdiction over 

allegations of sexual abuse. 

Question 67. Are there any individuals on your flagged list whom you’ve received 

complaints about, but that you have not acted on because they are not currently 

USA Swimming members? 

Although USA Swimming does not maintain a ‘‘flagged list,’’ the very purpose of 

creating and blocking a non-member record is to identify individuals outside the jurisdiction of USA Swimming who have engaged in misconduct and ensure they are 

100 

14For example, a non-member record may be created for a swim coach criminally charged 

with sexual misconduct who is not and was never a member of USA Swimming. We typically 

receive notification of the misconduct allegations via a Google alert highlighting a local news 

story. If the criminal charge ultimately is dropped, the coach would be able to pass a criminal 

background check and join USA Swimming. Based on the creation of a non-member record and 

designating it to require headquarters clearance, we are notified of the application, able to check 

our records, and intervene in the membership application process, as appropriate. It has not 

happened with any frequency, but it is critically important that we are aware if and when it 

does. 

not able to join the organization in the future.14 Again, USA Swimming retains jurisdiction over individuals who violated USA Swimming’s rules while members, so 

whether or not an individual is a member at the time the organization learns of 

the misconduct is irrelevant. 

Question 68. Does USA Swimming notify local clubs and communities, or any 

other national team—i.e. Team Canada—if individuals on this flagged list relocate 

and coach in locations that are not under USA Swimming’s jurisdiction? Are you 

aware that reports indicate that members on this very list have simply relocated 

and easily found new positions? Will you commit to doing the right thing, and notifying other clubs or countries that employ, perhaps unwittingly, individuals on your 

flagged list who are guilty of sexual misconduct? 

Answer. We do not track individuals who are outside the jurisdiction of USA 

Swimming; however, the scenario you describe underscores the value of pre-employment screening, which USA Swimming requires its member clubs to do before hiring 

a coach. Additionally, the information which we rely upon to create a non-member 

record is already publicly available. 

Question 69. Do you feel responsible for any abuse that occurs at the hands of 

these flagged individuals? 

Answer. These are individuals unaffiliated with USA Swimming who have already 

been publicly identified (including criminally charged) for misconduct that occurred 

unrelated to USA Swimming. Our intent in recording this information is to ensure 

they never become members of USA Swimming. 

Question 70. Following the hearing, video footage was captured where your legal 

counsel appears to represent that USA Swimming’s database should represent the 

complete list of disciplined members—not the Center for SafeSport’s database. 

There appears to be at least thirteen individuals who are currently suspended or 

banned by the U.S. Center for SafeSport, but whose names do not appear on any 

of USA Swimming’s public database of disciplined members. One individual left off 

of USA Swimming’s database is Sean Hutchinson, whom we know sexually abused 

Olympic swimmer Ariana Kukors. There’s also swimming coach Steven Lochte, who 

quietly resigned this past summer—just before he was given an interim suspension 

by the Center for SafeSport in September. The lack of an accurate centralized database to verify membership underscores USA Swimming’s complicity in ‘‘passing the 

garbage’’—passing sexual predators from one club to another. Why are so many individuals listed on the Center for SafeSport’s disciplinary records missing from the 

permanent and temporary banned lists on the USA Swimming site? If this was simply a mistake, have you rectified it? 

Answer. USA Swimming and the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the ‘‘Center’’) have 

different practices regarding the publication of names, which we are currently working to address. USA Swimming does not publish names until the hearing process 

has come to a final resolution, whereas the Center publishes upon the imposition 

of a suspension. As a result, the Center’s list includes certain names of individuals 

whose cases remain pending, including Sean Hutchison and Steven Lochte. However, in those cases, USA Swimming still notifies the relevant member club and 

Local Swimming Committee and updates its online member database to avoid ‘‘passing the garbage.’’ 

Question 71. Mr. Hinchey, if these lists are not kept up to date, how can you expect athletes, clubs, and communities to accurately verify membership and prevent 

predators from abusing athletes? 

Answer. Though the lists are kept up to date, USA Swimming recognizes the confusion caused by the different publication practices by the U.S. Center for SafeSport 

(the ‘‘Center’’) and USA Swimming, and we are working with the Center to remedy 

it. 

Question 72. Former USA Swimming coach Michael McCorvy was deemed permanently ineligible by Magnolia Aquatic Club this past April. While no recent charges 

have been filed against McCorvy, his ban was likely due to his 1992 charge of criminal trespassing and sexual assault. If USA Swimming is actually requiring their 

101 

15https://swimswam.com/usa-swimmings-list-banned-members-brings-confusion/ 

coaches to pass background checks, how did McCorvy—with his sexual assault 

crimes that were pled down to a misdemeanor—pass his checks from 1992 on? Why 

isn’t he on USA Swimming’s list of disciplined individuals? 

Answer. USA Swimming’s criminal background check is premised on the vendor’s 

ability to obtain criminal records under applicable state and Federal law. McCorvy’s 

1992 charges of criminal trespassing and sexual assault were not reported on his 

criminal background report. He is not on USA Swimming’s list of disciplined individuals because his case remains pending. As previously described, USA Swimming 

does not publish the names of individuals whose cases remain pending (though it 

does notify the applicable member club and Local Swimming Committee and updates its online member database). 

Question 73. Do USA Swimming background checks flag both felonies and misdemeanors—especially if the misdemeanors are sexual in nature? Do background 

checks that are currently being administered now flag those with misdemeanors of 

a sexual nature? How so? 

Answer. Yes, USA Swimming’s Background Check Policy is publicly available at 

https://www.usaswimming.org/background-checks. 

Question 74. In January 2018, three USA Swimming members were added to its 

banned list. All had committed sexually-related crimes that are being investigated 

or adjudicated by legal authorities.15 One individual, 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. However, on USA Swimming’s website, they are just 

banned under ‘‘Violation of the SafeSport Code.’’ None of the reasons included their 

sexual crimes, diminishing the list’s value to non-USA Swimming organizations that 

might attempt to hire the three individuals. What are you doing to make your 

banned and suspended lists more informative? 

Answer. Presently, USA Swimming’s banned and suspended lists cite to the rule 

violation that resulted in the sanction. Based on the applicable rule and year, it is 

clearer in some instances more than others what was the underlying conduct resulting in the sanction. USA Swimming recognizes that the basis for the ban or suspension is relevant and important and is working to address this while still maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the publication. 

Question 75. Local swim clubs that are members of USA Swimming were insured 

until 2014 by U.S. Sports Insurance Company Inc., a company originally based in 

Barbados created and solely owned by USA Swimming and governed by former and 

current USA Swimming officials. The company provided general liability coverage 

for sexual abuse to local clubs, and also was responsible for underwriting USA 

Swimming’s scorched earth, plaintiff-draining legal defense strategy against sexual 

abuse claims. Is it true that U.S. Sports Insurance Company Inc. was partially paid 

for by the fees of amateur swimmers at the club level? 

Answer. Prior to 2014, and as far back as 1980, Lexington Insurance Company 

provided yearly insurance policies to USA Swimming and member clubs. USSIC (referred to as U.S. Sports Insurance Company, Inc.) provided some level of reinsurance to Lexington Insurance Company beginning in 1988. Insurance is a benefit of 

membership, so that member clubs can lease or rent pool time. Membership fees are 

one category of USA Swimming’s revenue; insurance is one category of USA 

Swimming’s expenses. 

The defense strategy of each case is and was determined by the facts of the case 

and applicable law. Settlement demands were evaluated by Lexington Insurance 

Company and the individual defendants’ attorneys, rather than a ‘‘scorched earth, 

plaintiff-draining legal defense strategy.’’ 

USSIC also had two independent board members as part of the governance structure that were not affiliated with USA Swimming. 

Question 76. Do you find anything disturbing about swimmers paying the fees of 

lawyers who might fight against them in court someday regarding sexual abuse litigation? 

Answer. Swimmers do not pay the fees of lawyers. Swimmers generally pay 

monthly dues to their club, which covers a membership fee, cost of pool time, and 

club expenses such as coaching salaries. A small part of the dues is passed along 

to USA Swimming. Insurance is a benefit of membership in USA Swimming since 

practice facilities and meet facilities require clubs to provide evidence of insurance. 

The facts of each case are evaluated by the insurer’s claim adjusters and defense 

102 

counsel representing each individual defendant, who make the decision on the nature and extent of the defense and respond to settlement demands. 

Question 77. While the U.S. Sports Insurance Company Inc. provides $2 million 

worth of liability insurance for sexual abuse civil cases, until recently the company 

provided local clubs just $100,000 in coverage in sexual abuse cases. Do you think 

that $100,000 is ‘‘enough’’ coverage to protect individuals at local swim coverage, 

given the massive scope of sexual abuse in the sport? 

Answer. Effective January 1, 2014, and due to the improving risk profile of USA 

Swimming and its member clubs, the insurance marketplace increased the limits 

available to USA Swimming clubs to $1,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate and provided additional limits where required by written contract. From a 

practical standpoint, the question is not what is ‘‘enough’’ coverage, but what is 

available in the marketplace to purchase during any given year. 

Question 78. There was a real purpose for reducing the financial exposure of the 

U.S. Sports Insurance Company, and it wasn’t a good one. According to the OC Register, the lower liability coverage for local clubs was a factor in generating millions 

of dollars in ‘‘safety rebates’’ from the company back to USA Swimming. Do you 

know what the term ‘‘self-dealing’’ means? Are you aware that this arrangement between USA Swimming and the insurance company is a prime example of this practice? 

Answer. USSIC was owned by USA Swimming; it was not an independent insurance company. Safety Rebates (or dividends) from USSIC were paid from 1999 to 

2006 and were paid based on improving loss experience and lower insurance premiums. The improved experience was due to lower frequency and severity of injuries 

due to racing starts. It is not uncommon for a subsidiary to pay a dividend to a parent company. USA Swimming capitalized USSIC in 1988 and subsequent years with 

over $5 million and paid additional capital to USSIC of $1.7 million in 2011. Prior 

to 2006, there were very few claims of sexual misconduct filed against USA Swimming member clubs. 

Question 79. This arrangement also signals that USA Swimming was aware that 

there was a sexual abuse problem in swimming. Do you recognize that USA Swimming was essentially betting on the rate of sexual abuse that would occur under its 

very watch? 

Answer. USSIC was established 1988 due to injuries from racing starts. There 

was a significant improvement in injuries from racing starts due to USA 

Swimming’s racing start certification program and adoption of minimum pool depths 

for racing starts. The captive insurer did not tie safety rebates to sexual abuse; 

rather, the safety rebates were paid before an increase in sexual misconduct claims 

and due to a decrease in racing start injuries. 

Question 80. I know that this arrangement occurred before you took the reins as 

the leader of USA Swimming, but I want you to take a moment and reflect. Do you 

think that betting a financial windfall on the backs of sexual abuse survivors is 

morally reprehensible? 

Answer. I don’t believe USA Swimming bet a financial windfall on the backs of 

sexual abuse survivors. 

Question 81. How much money has USA Swimming spent on legal fees? How 

much has USA Swimming spent in the voluntary compensation for abuse—not including settlements or lawsuits? 

Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, USA Swimming spent approximately $300,000 on 

legal fees, which included business operations expenses, in addition to Safe Sportrelated disciplinary matters. In Fiscal Year 2017, USA Swimming paid approximately $23,000 through its survivors’ assistance fund, SwimAssist. We recognize 

that SwimAssist is underutilized and have taken a number of steps to increase 

awareness of it among our membership. In 2019, SwimAssist is currently budgeted 

at $100,000 with $1.5 million in reserves. 

Question 82. Has USA Swimming set up, or attempted to set up a victim’s defense 

fund? Looking back in retrospect as the organization’s current leader, do you believe 

that the cost of such a fund would have been less than the cumulative amount that 

USA Swimming has spent on litigation with abuse survivors? 

Answer. To my knowledge, USA Swimming has not attempted to set up a victim’s 

defense fund, and I am unable to speculate whether the cost of such a fund would 

have been less than the cumulative amount that USA Swimming has spent on civil 

litigation involving claims of sexual misconduct. 

Question 83. Is it USA Swimming’s policy to automatically deny responsibility in 

civil lawsuits regarding their role in sexual abuse? What type of message do you 

believe that USA Swimming’s litigation sends to survivors? 

103 

Answer. USA Swimming’s legal strategy is largely developed by local counsel 

based on the relevant facts and in accordance with applicable law. USA Swimming 

does not have a policy to automatically deny responsibility in civil lawsuits. 

Question 84. It is my understanding that the U.S. Sports Insurance Company Inc. 

was sold in 2014. Does USA Swimming currently have an insurance company that 

provides coverage for sexual abuse? Which company? Is it run in-house by former 

and current USA Swimming officials, like the last company? 

Answer. USA Swimming started purchasing insurance from K&K Insurance Company in 2014, who provides the insurance through National Casualty. Commercial 

insurance became available to USA Swimming due to our improving risk profile and 

a strong Safe Sport program. USSIC was sold to R&Q Insurance in 2016. Neither 

entity is run by former members or officials; both are public companies unrelated 

to USA Swimming. 

Question 85. Has USA Swimming encountered difficulty in maintaining an insurance plan after the scope of the sexual abuse scandal has become clear? 

Answer. No. Besides K&K Insurance/National Casualty, other insurers have submitted insurance proposals to USA Swimming due to our improving risk profile. 

USA Swimming has not encountered difficulty in maintaining an insurance plan, 

and the current insurance plan is in place through 2019. USA Swimming was able 

to obtain increased insurance limits for clubs in 2014 due to our improving risk profile from our Safe Sport program. 

Question 86. Does USA Swimming still require athletes to contribute to its insurance plan with an athlete fee of any sort? Do these fees still underwrite USA 

Swimming’s litigation against sexual abuse claimants? 

Answer. USA Swimming has a membership fee which is one source of revenue. 

Insurance is a benefit of membership. We do not initiate litigation against sexual 

abuse victims, but our insurer may pay defense costs for legal cases filed against 

individual defendants in line with the insurance contract. We also maintain a survivors’ assistance fund, SwimAssist, and provide Participant Accident Insurance to 

members. 

Question 87. Do you have any comment on how your predecessor handled the U.S. 

Sports Insurance Company Inc. in regards to collecting funds from amateur club 

swimmers to combat athlete sexual abuse civil suits? Do you have comment regarding USA Swimming’s tactics of litigation against abuse victims? 

Answer. It is my understanding that USSIC was set up in 1988, prior to any sexual abuse litigation filed against USA Swimming, and sold in 2014. Membership 

dues have been part of USA Swimming since 1980 and are one source of the organization’s annual revenue. USA Swimming’s litigation strategies are largely developed 

by counsel in line with the facts alleged and applicable law. Any comment about 

my predecessor, who I never met, would be inappropriate, but under my leadership, 

USA Swimming is committed to an improved Safe Sport program and relationships 

with survivors of abuse in the sport. 

Question 88. In 2013, USA Swimming paid Nielsen Merksamer, a Sacramento lobbying firm, $77,627 to lobby against SB 131, California legislation that would have 

given childhood sexual abuse victims more time to file civil suits and recover damages against organizations that employed sexual predators. Why do you think that 

USA Swimming was interested in lobbying against legislation that would have 

helped sexual abuse victims? Do you believe that this expenditure represents an appropriate use of funds for USA Swimming? 

Answer. Although I was not here in 2013, my understanding is that USA 

Swimming’s objections to the legislation were similar in nature to what Governor 

Brown cited in his veto of the legislation https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2017/09/SB_131_2013_Veto_Message.pdf). However, I do not envision USA 

Swimming lobbying against state law under my leadership. 

Question 89. Do you believe that USA Swimming’s liability against sexual abuse 

litigation should be protected more than athletes’ safety? Do you believe that advocating for legislation that would reduce your organization’s legal risk at the expense 

of survivors sends the right message after hundreds were abused over decades 

under USA Swimming’s watch? 

Answer. Although I was not here in 2013, my understanding is that USA 

Swimming’s objections to the legislation were similar in nature to what Governor 

Brown cited in his veto of the legislation https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2017/09/SB_131_2013_Veto_Message.pdf). However, I do not envision USA 

Swimming lobbying against state law under my leadership. 

104 

Question 90. Is USA Swimming currently using funds to lobby against child or 

sexual abuse legislation? Is USA Swimming currently spending money on any lobbying, or government affairs work? If yes, what are they advocating on behalf of? 

Answer. USA Swimming is not currently using funds for lobbying activities, including child or sexual abuse legislation. In 2019, we anticipate getting more involved in other legislative matters, including, for example, water safety and antidoping initiatives. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO TIMOTHY HINCHEY III 

Question 1. Athlete and Community Engagement: To what extent are you personally—and your leadership and staff—actively engaging with both the Athletes’ Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programming to stamp 

out a culture of abuse that enabled predators to target athletes? 

Answer. USA Swimming’s representative on the Athletes’ Advisory Council is 

Natalie Coughlin Hall. Natalie also serves on USA Swimming’s Board of Directors 

and is a member of the Board Task Force that works with USA Swimming leadership on Safe Sport-related issues. In this regard, we have worked closely with our 

AAC representative, although USA Swimming has not engaged with the broader 

AAC directly (on this issue or any other). 

My staff and I have also personally met with a number of survivors of sexual 

abuse—young and old, male and female, current members and former, from recreational to elite level swimmers. As I mentioned in my testimony, the input several 

survivors have provided over the past months has been among the most powerful, 

compelling and effective I’ve received and has directly resulted in positive change. 

I will continue to solicit, listen to, and implement it. 

Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are victims of sexual 

abuse to help direct your programs away from this widely reported culture of abuse 

that enabled predators? 

Answer. Yes, some of whom have publicly acknowledged their experience and others who have not. 

Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB? 

Answer. USA Swimming empowers athlete voices in our organization through a 

variety of ways, including representation on our Board of Directors and all committees. USA Swimming also has created a number of educational and training programs to engage and empower athletes, including the athlete-led Athlete Leadership 

Summit, She LEADs and the Athlete Fellow program. USA Swimming further engages with athletes on an informal basis through regular meetings and conversations. 

Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure that you are 

using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision making? 

Answer. Internally, we are working to incorporate athlete perspectives into everything that we do. In addition to the formal channels mentioned above, we have increased our outreach to athletes on relevant topics and are building a bigger network of those to consult with on the decisions being made by staff that impact their 

experience with the organization. 

Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between athletes and administrators? 

Answer. Yes, in certain circumstances and among certain athletes and administrators. 

Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who provide their 

opinions? 

Answer. In addition to having a rule that prohibits retaliation against individuals 

who have made good faith reports of abuse (see Article 307 of USA Swimming’s 

Rules), we also have a demonstrated practice of encouraging reporting and sharing 

opinions without retaliation. As the President & CEO of the organization, I have 

made clear to my staff that this type of behavior will not be tolerated, and that sentiment has been echoed by our Board Chair. 

Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created partnerships 

with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide examples. 

Answer. I am not familiar enough with the USOC’s efforts in this regard to draw 

a conclusion. But like USA Swimming, the USOC can always do more. 

105 

Question 8. Do you currently employ a full time staff member with sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe emotional, physical and 

sexual abuse? If so, please identify that person and their role. 

Answer. The full-time staff members that engage most frequently with victims of 

emotional, physical and sexual abuse are Tiffany Midkiff, Safe Sport Coordinator, 

and Liz Hahn, Safe Sport Senior Manager. Tiffany joined USA Swimming in 2018 

after a distinguished career in the United States Army, which included serving as 

a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) for the Department of Defense Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program (SHARP) from October 

2012 to March 2018. Liz joined USA Swimming in 2011 after serving as a caseworker in the SAIFE Unit (Sexual Abuse Intervention and Family Education) for 

the El Paso County Department of Human Services. 

Additional members of our Safe Sport staff include a social worker, a former Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in the special victim’s team sex crimes and child abuse 

unit, and a former guardian ad litem. 

Question 9. Safesport: The Center for SafeSport must succeed. I think from all the 

testimony we have received during these hearings, and in many of my private meetings with survivors, advocates, leadership in sport including NGB’s, the USOC, and 

Safe Sport, we know that we must stimulate a culture of reporting. In 2017 testimony offered by Mr. Rick Adams, of the USOC, he said there was an 

‘‘. . .environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse. . .’’ at NGBs. 

Do you agree with Mr. Adam’s assessment of the culture within your organization 

prior to your tenure? 

Answer. Many survivors felt very comfortable reporting and working with USA 

Swimming, but others obviously did not. It is critically important that USA Swimming create and promote an environment where all survivors feel safe to report 

abuse without fear of retaliation and confident that allegations will be taken seriously, and we are working to instill that. 

Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific changes to address this ‘‘environment’’ that ‘‘discouraged victims from reporting abuse’’? 

Answer. Our reporting process and procedures have not changed, but I have 

sought to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to providing a safe and healthy 

environment for all members and to responding appropriately when reports are received in order to ensure that survivors are willing to come forward. 

Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your sport and community? 

Answer. When I started with USA Swimming in July 2017, it was clear that the 

organization had a robust Safe Sport framework and program in place. However, it 

also became clear that there was still considerable organizational culture change 

that needed to occur to be as successful as possible in preventing and responding 

to abuse. 

Over the past 16 months, I have pursued such organizational culture change 

through four main approaches. First, I have adopted a ‘‘zero tolerance’’ approach to 

abuse and harassment within swimming. This has resulted in both suspensions of 

membership and terminations of employment. Second, I have proactively sought opportunities to meet with survivors of sexual abuse within our sport to listen and 

to learn. Third, I have engaged our athletes—from grassroots to elite—in shaping 

and directing our program. And finally, I have transitioned the organization from 

asking, ‘‘Why would we?’’ to ‘‘Why wouldn’t we?’’ Why wouldn’t we pursue whatever 

opportunities possible to protect our children and athletes, even if they may fall outside the traditional scope and responsibility of a National Governing Body. 

Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or influence over athletes and 

their families? 

Answer. USA Swimming recognizes that there is an inherent power imbalance between coaches and athletes. However, based on that recognition and understanding, 

we have taken steps to mitigate its effects and unintended consequences. For example, among other things, USA Swimming’s Best Practice Guidelines encourage parents to support and be involved in their children’s swimming experience and discourage coaches from initiating contact with athletes outside of club activities or developing peer-to-peer relationships with athletes. 

Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of members of 

your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and teach them the value 

of SafeSport programs? 

Since 2012, USA Swimming has offered free Safe Sport parent education. USA 

Swimming also promotes the U.S. Center for Safe Sport’s parent education through 

our social media and communication channels. Additionally, USA Swimming is 

106 

working with its largest online team management platform, TeamUnify, to distribute Safe Sport messaging and education to parents through team websites. Finally, USA Swimming encourages its member clubs to include Safe Sport content 

in their communications with parents, such as during parent meetings and in team 

handbooks. 

Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the USOC to 

communicate their material to all of their NGB’s and on to the member clubs? 

Answer. I am not aware of any such recommendations. 

Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or disseminate 

SafeSport information? 

Answer. We have found that different audiences (e.g., athletes, coaches, parents, 

clubs, officials, Local Swim Committees (LSCs), etc.) receive and share information 

differently. We are working to enhance our communication through social media, as 

that seems to resonate most effectively with athletes. USA Swimming publishes a 

monthly coach newsletter via e-mail through which we distribute resources and opportunities unique to coaches. At the local swim club level, we are leveraging one 

of our largest team management platforms (TeamUnify) to push Safe Sport content 

through team websites to team administrators and parents. This is a watershed opportunity for our athlete protection program, whose key audience is swim parents, 

even though parents are not typically members and therefore more challenging to 

reach. Finally, we send out a Safe Sport bi-monthly newsletter to over 500 individuals, including LSC Safe Sport Chairs, LSC General Chairs, LSC permanent office 

staff, LSC Registration Chairs, the Safe Sport Committee, our NGB Safe Sport 

counterparts, and additional members who have signed up to receive it, who subsequently pass it on to additional members and constituents. 

Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what steps does 

your organization take to enforce that interim measure with limited information? 

Answer. When the U.S. Center for Safe Sport imposes an interim suspension on 

a USA Swimming member, we notify the member’s club and Local Swimming Committee, in addition to making a notation in our online member database. USA 

Swimming’s rules also prohibit member clubs and coaches from allowing any suspended individual to coach or instruct athletes, from aiding or abetting the coaching 

or instruction of athletes, or for allowing such individuals to have an ownership interest in a USA Swimming club (See Article 304.3.10 of USA Swimming’s Rules). 

Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for athletes to report 

misconduct—either physical, emotional, or financial? 

Answer. Individuals may report violations of USA Swimming rules (including 

physical, emotional or financial misconduct) via our online reporting form, phone, 

e-mail, text, or any other available communication channel (e.g., Facebook or other 

social media). Anonymous reporting is permitted in all circumstances. Additionally, 

individuals may report to the U.S. Center for SafeSport, which will refer to us any 

allegations of misconduct outside of its jurisdiction. 

Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those reporting 

channels? 

Answer. Historically, few conflicts of interest have arisen within USA Swimming’s 

reporting, investigatory and hearing processes; however, when they have, the affected staff members and volunteers have recused themselves and been shielded 

from the processes. Additionally, since 2017, USA Swimming has requested the U.S. 

Center for Safe Sport address matters that involve an actual or perceived conflict 

of interest with a USA Swimming staff member or volunteer. 

Protection and Removal 

Question 19. What direct action is your organization taking not only to identify, 

but also to remove coaches, athlete directors, employees, and officials who witnessed 

either emotional or physical abuse of athletes and did nothing to stop it or report 

it to authorities? 

Answer. USA Swimming has had a mandatory reporting requirement since 2010 

(see Article 306 of USA Swimming’s Rules). In circumstances where a member knew 

of the abuse (regardless of whether or not they witnessed it) and failed to report 

it, we have imposed sanctions. Now that the Protecting Young Children from Sexual 

Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act requires USA Swimming members to report 

suspected child abuse to law enforcement within 24 hours (regardless of state law), 

we will work with law enforcement to ensure appropriate enforcement of the law, 

in addition to our rules. 

Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs to be able 

to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements? 

107 

Answer. The biggest challenges for USA Swimming member clubs to be able to 

adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements are a lack of clarity regarding the 

requirements themselves, limited time and resources available in volunteer, parentrun organizations, and restricted oversight of coach-run organizations. 

Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you are directed to 

uphold and where do they apply to? 

Answer. USA Swimming is directed to uphold explicit protections, including: 

• Complying with the reporting requirements set forth in section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990; 

• Establishing reasonable procedures to limit one-on-one interactions between an 

amateur athlete who is a minor and an adult (who is not the minor’s legal 

guardian) at a facility under the jurisdiction of USA Swimming without being 

in an observable and interruptible distance from another adult, except under 

emergency circumstances; 

• Offering and providing consistent training to all adult members who are in regular contact with amateur athletes who are minors, and subject to parent consent, to members who are minors, regarding prevention and reporting of child 

abuse to allow a complainant to report easily an incident of child abuse to appropriate persons; 

Further, all adult members of USA Swimming and all adults authorized by such 

members to interact with amateur athletes must report immediately any allegation 

of child abuse to the Center and to law enforcement. 

Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training centers? 

Answer. No, the duty covers facilities under the jurisdiction of USA Swimming. 

Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member clubs? Member 

events? 

Answer. Yes, the duty covers facilities under the jurisdiction of USA Swimming. 

Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that protection? 

Answer. Every covered individual is responsible for the protection of athletes in 

our sport; as the President & Chief Executive Officer, I am the most responsible. 

Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional staff that are 

experts with survivors of sexual abuse? 

Answer. Since I joined the organization in July 2017, USA Swimming has hired 

two new employees to work with our Safe Sport program, and based on those experiences, I feel very comfortable with our ability to hire staff with relevant and appropriate expertise. As I noted in my October 3 testimony, USA Swimming recently 

hired a Safe Sport Coordinator and Associate Counsel to enhance our operational 

capabilities. Their respective backgrounds include serving as a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator in the United States Army and a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 

in the special victim’s team sex crimes and child abuse unit, and their skill sets 

complement the other members of the Safe Sport staff, which now totals eight—four 

core and four support. These staff members work with countless other Safe Sport 

Champions, including a twelve-member Safe Sport Committee, four national Zone 

Safe Sport Coordinators, 59 Local Swim Committee Safe Sport Coordinators, twelve 

Safe Sport Athlete Fellows, hundreds of Safe Sport Club Coordinators, and the organization’s Board of Directors to foster a culture of athlete protection throughout the 

organization. 

Question 26. Ban Lists: Susanne Lyons, former Acting CEO and upcoming Board 

Chair of the USOC, said in her hearing testimony before the House Commerce Committee in May, that she committed to looking into creating and enforcement requirements that ‘‘ban lists’’ be made publicly available. I know a number of your organizations do post those lists. 

Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization? 

Answer. No. 

Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from the USOC 

since the May testimony with regard to the NGB’s publishing accessible lists of all 

banned individuals? 

Answer. None to my knowledge. 

Question 28. Do these ban lists work? What could be done to best disseminate this 

information? 

Answer. Anecdotally, we know that USA Swimming’s published list of banned individuals has prevented certain hiring decisions outside of our membership; however, we don’t have a good sense of how frequently and effectively it is being used. 

108 

It is my understanding that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is looking further into 

this issue. 

In addition to the publication of names on its website, USA Swimming also 

proactively notifies the impacted club and Local Swimming Committee when an individual is banned or suspended from membership and makes the appropriate designation in its online member database. 

Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for NGB member 

clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list? 

Answer. I am not aware of any USOC-imposed consequences for NGB member 

clubs that hire a coach or other individual on an NGB’s or the U.S. Center for Safe 

Sport’s banned list; however, USA Swimming rules prohibit member clubs and 

coaches from allowing any suspended individual to coach or instruct athletes, from 

aiding or abetting the coaching or instruction of athletes, or for allowing such individuals to have an ownership interest in a USA Swimming club (See Article 

304.3.10 of USA Swimming’s Rules). Those rules would be enforced by USA Swimming via membership bans or suspensions for the individual(s) and/or member 

club(s) in violation. 

Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong policies to 

keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC or individual 

NGB’s? 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

DARRIN STEELE

Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act impacted your National 

Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and resource perspective? 

Answer. USABS has complied with all necessary requirements of the Protecting 

Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act with the support of outside legal consultation. 

Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review cases, implement 

training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on how this is being implemented. 

Answer. Temporary outside legal support was employed to ensure compliance, and 

current employees were tasked with the implementation of policies and procedures 

as well as the monitoring of training and education for the organization. We hired 

no additional personnel. 

Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer 

cases that are not sexual abuse to the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. USABS does not have formal protocols/procedures for investigating allegations not involving sexual abuse. We will refer those allegations that fall under 

the authority of the U.S. Center for SafeSport to the Center. 

Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the others? What 

portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)? 

Answer. In the 2016/17 Fiscal Year, total revenue for the eight winter NGBs 

ranged between $2.3M—$42.2M. The total revenue of USABS ranked 5th at 3.7M. 

USOC revenue makes up approximately 60 percent of total revenue for USABS. 

Question 5. Based on your NGB’s experiences in handling abuse allegations, did 

the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 

provide the necessary authorities to the Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address 

abuse allegations? If there are shortcomings, please identify them. 

Answer. To date, we have not identified any shortcomings in the authorities for 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors regarding Larry 

Nassar’s sexual abuse under the guise of medical treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, expertise and access in one individual for a 

lengthy period of time was a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. 

Has your NGB updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 

happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has the 

structure of your medical staff changed? 

Answer. Although USABS does not have a structure where medical oversight, expertise and access lies with one individual, we have three notable policies to reduce 

the risk of abuse. 

109 

A new policy was created requiring all athletes to see a physician outside the 

USABS and USOC medical system every four years for a comprehensive medical 

physical exam. 

A new policy was created requiring all medical and massage treatments to be performed in Sports Medicine at Olympic Training Center or in a separate, designated 

room at a hotel when traveling, with SafeSport information prominently displayed. 

No treatments or evaluations are authorized in bedrooms. 

All athletes are given a post-season survey on all medical providers and that information is used to determine if any issues have occurred. Changes to medical staff 

are based on these evaluations. 

Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, what policies 

and procedures have you put in place regarding access, retention and preservation 

of athlete’s medical records? Have you provided those policies to USOC? 

Answer. All athlete medical records are to be entered into the USOC electronic 

medical record system. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

DARRIN STEELE

Question 1. First, I want to start off by saying I admire the bravery of the athletes 

who have come before this Committee previously to share their story. As a father 

and grandfather, I know that what happened to them is every parent’s worst nightmare. We live to protect our children, and it is disgusting to me that the individuals 

that they reported abuse to didn’t protect them. 

Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy organizations to have 

them review and suggest improvements to your policies and procedures to ensure 

with certainty that your athletes are protected from abuse? 

Answer. We have not yet done this, but we agree with the suggestion and are 

committed to completing it within the current Fiscal Year. 

Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to determine and 

measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report abuse? How recently were 

these surveys conducted? 

Answer. We regularly conduct surveys with our athletes that allow anonymous responses and ensure confidentiality. The most recent surveys took place after the 

2018 Olympic Games. 

Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes understand what 

type of behavior from coaches or other adults is inappropriate and should be reported? 

Answer. Each youth membership prompts a notification to parents or guardians 

that directs them to SafeSport information and educational material about appropriate behavior from coaches or other adults. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

DARRIN STEELE

Question 1. Currently, amateur athletes are only eligible for up to 10 years after 

their last qualifying international competition to represent athletes on NGB or 

USOC boards. Athlete advocates have called for this 10-year requirement to be relaxed, so that older, possibly retired athletes who have more professional experience, 

time, and resources, may contribute their expertise. Would you support expanding 

the eligibility? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 2. Provided that eligibility for athlete representation is expanded, would 

you support ensuring that the membership and voting power held by such amateur 

athletes is not less than 50 percent of the membership and voting power held in 

the board of directors of the corporation and in the committees and entities of the 

corporation? 

Answer. No. 

Question 3. Please explain any factors preventing you from changing your NGB’s 

bylaws to 1) increase the percent of athlete representation on your board, and 2) 

allow for older former amateur athletes who may have more professional experience 

to serve on boards. If there are no factors preventing you from making these 

changes, please explain why you have not or will not in the near future. 

Answer. The USABS bylaws specify the requirements for amending the bylaws, 

including changes that impact voting power of any board director category. The byVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
110 

laws do not give USABS the authority to redefine the eligibility requirements for 

athlete representatives. Those eligibility requirements are defined by the Amateur 

Sports Act. 

It is important that athlete representation does not fall below 20 percent in either 

members or voting power because the athlete voice is crucial to the board and ensures that athlete interests and perspectives are always considered. I do not oppose 

an increase in athlete representation provided that the increase is due to the rigorous vetting process that the rest of the board members go through prior to joining 

the board. 

The current process for athlete representatives being named to the board is 

through direct appointment through an election of the athletes. That process is appropriate for 20 percent representation, but not for a greater than 50 percent representation, as suggested in the hearing. 

The standards for non-athlete board members are very high and those nominees 

are vetted by a committee to ensure competence and the presence of any specific 

backgrounds desired by the board (ie, law, fundraising, marketing, human resources, strategic planning, etc.). 

While it is not possible to change the requirement for athlete representatives, it 

should be noted it should be noted that older former amateur athletes are allowed 

to participate on the Board today. In addition to the three athlete representatives 

on our board, the USABS has two additional board directors who are Olympians, 

but do not count as athlete representatives. One of which has BS and MS degrees 

in Public Health and Health Care Administration, and the other is a graduate of 

West Point with an MBA from Columbia. Their education, professional experience, 

AND athletic backgrounds make them incredibly valuable and competent board 

members. 

A point that is too often lost in this conversation is the need for diversity within 

an organization. Diverse ideas, points of view and perspectives allow us to more effectively achieve our mission and serve a wider population of stakeholders. USABS 

supports that concept and Section 6.3 of the USABS bylaws, ‘Diversity of Discussion’ 

states; ‘‘USABS’s Board shall develop norms that favor open discussion and favor 

the presentation of different views.’’ 

Increasing by mandate, representation of any contingency group—including athletes, to a majority reduces diversity and stands in opposition to the teachings and 

best practices for effective nonprofit boards. 

Question 4. Please explain your NGB’s process for changing bylaws, ethical codes, 

and any other policies or procedures. 

Answer. Section 21.1 of the USABS Bylaws states the following: 

Any amendment or repeal of these Bylaws that increases or decreases the number of directors, changes the membership categories, or changes membership 

voting rights, may only be voted on and approved by the members of the membership category or categories whose number of directors, category, or voting 

rights are affected. 

Otherwise, these Bylaws may only be amended, repealed, or substituted at any 

duly-noticed meeting of the Board or at a special meeting of the Board, at which 

a quorum is present, upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the 

members of the Board entitled to vote. 

The Code of Ethics is written and approved annually by the Ethics Committee. 

Policies and procedures are under the purview of the management and may require 

proper notice and/or AAC approval. 

Question 5. Are you committed to making sure half of coaches at protected competitions are women? If yes, how do you plan to accomplish that? 

Answer. No. We recognize the importance of developing and hiring female coaches, but we oppose quotas. Women’s bobsled and skeleton disciplines were not Olympic until 2002 and the vast majority of coaches were former competitors. That is one 

reason the development of female coaches has not yet caught up to the development 

of male coaches. As more female coaches develop, we expect the percentage of female coaches to increase. While we ideally prefer gender balance, we are concerned 

first and foremost with the quality of the coach. 

Question 6. Given USOC’s oversight relationship with NGBs and since NGBs are 

required to follow guidelines and requirements set forth by USOC, would you agree 

that USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and how effectively they promote athlete safety? Why or why not? 

Answer. Yes, I agree the USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and how effectively they promote athlete safety. That oversight is defined by the Amateur Sports 

Act. 

111 

Question 7. Would you support the Athletes’ Advisory Council having a vote on 

USOC’s Board? 

Answer. Yes. The Athletes’ Advisory Council currently has three votes on the 

USOC’s Board. Those three USOC Board members were elected by the AAC and 

nominated to the USOC Board. 

Question 8. Would you support the Multi-Sport Organization Council having a 

vote on USOC’s Board? 

Answer. No. 

Question 9. If the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to add an individual to its 

banned or temporarily suspended lists, what authority does your NGB have to independently take such action? 

Answer. The Amateur Sports Act requires that we ensure due process, which includes a hearing prior to banning or suspending individuals. Once that happens, we 

have the authority to ban or suspend individuals. 

Question 10. Is it true that if NGB membership is given up before disciplinary 

action is taken, you can escape being placed on your NGB’s disciplinary records? 

Answer. No. 

Question 11. How can banned lists—whether on NGBs sites or the Center for 

SafeSport’s records—be made more useful for athletes, parents, clubs? How in sync 

are the Center for SafeSport and NGB’s lists? 

Answer. I am of the opinion that the best way to make banned lists more useful 

for athletes, parents, and clubs is by ensuring that those stakeholders are aware 

of the lists and know where to find them. The banned list for USABS is in sync 

with the list maintained by the Center for SafeSport. 

Question 12. Where should individuals go for the most comprehensive list and information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members for your NGB? Does 

the Center for SafeSport’s website have a comprehensive list? Does your NGB’s 

website have a comprehensive list? Please explain. 

Answer. We do not currently have any banned or suspended members, but if that 

changes, we will have the information available on our website and the Center for 

SafeSport will have that information on their website as well. 

Question 13. If you become aware that a coach has been engaged in sexual misconduct, for example, would your first call be to law enforcement or to the Center 

for SafeSport? 

Answer. If an allegation of sexual misconduct toward a minor is made, the first 

call will be to law enforcement. If an allegation of sexual misconduct toward an 

adult is made, and that conduct is described as sexual abuse or misconduct under 

Federal or state law, the first call will be to law enforcement. If the allegation of 

sexual misconduct toward an adult is made, and that conduct is not described as 

sexual abuse or misconduct under Federal or state law, the first call will be to the 

Center for SafeSport. 

Question 14. Do you ever rely on the Center for SafeSport for required reporting 

to law enforcement? Under what circumstances would you not call law enforcement 

at all, but only inform the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. Any circumstances requiring a call to law enforcement will be made by 

the NGB and we will not rely on the Center for SafeSport to report it to law enforcement. Allegations of bullying, hazing, or sexual harassment will not necessitate a 

call to law enforcement in most cases, but would be reported to the Center for 

SafeSport. 

Question 15. If you witness or receive complaints regarding grooming behaviors 

by a member, would you report that to law enforcement, or only to the Center for 

SafeSport? 

Answer. Grooming behaviors that do not include violations of the law would be 

reported to the CEO of USABS and the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Question 16. Under what circumstances would or have you hired an independent 

investigator to investigate a complaint? 

Answer. USABS would hire an independent investigator in the event that the 

U.S. Center for SafeSport rejected a claim, but significant questions remained unanswered in the view of the Board. 

Question 17. How many times have you personally called law enforcement, pursuant to your mandatory reporting requirements? 

Answer. To date, we have not had any mandatory reporting requirements to fulfill. 

Question 18. What specific penalties are in place for members in your NGB who 

fail to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement? 

112 

16https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/Arbitration—HearingPanel-Cases/Section-10/2011/Robinson-v-USA-Taekwondo-22712.pdf?la=en&hash=31C1EF0B 

6376CA5D5C73BEF0598708EA9A9040F1 

Answer. Failure to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement is a violation 

of the USABS Athlete Safety Policy and grounds for termination of a staff member 

and dismissal of a volunteer. 

Question 19. How many times have you imposed such penalties? 

Answer. To date, no member of USABS has been found in violation of the reporting requirements. 

Question 20. Has your NGB developed explicit rules that reinforce the ethical line 

between coaches and athletes (i.e., no texting, including parents or guardians on correspondence)? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 21. Have you developed sport-specific educational or training materials 

to complement the more generic U.S. Center for SafeSport training materials? Who 

have you worked with in developing such materials? 

Answer. To date, USABS as not developed educational or training materials independent of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Question 22. Do you think it might be confusing to athletes for NGBs to have internal ‘‘SafeSport’’ programs and for there to also be a ‘‘U.S. Center for SafeSport’’ 

that is actually in charge of handling sexual misconduct? 

Answer. The USABS has changed it’s SafeSport Policy to the Athlete Safety Policy, although we have not experienced confusion to date. 

Question 23. Can you commit today to changing the name of any existing internal 

‘‘SafeSport’’ programs to make the distinction clear for athletes? 

Answer. This distinction is currently being addressed by the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport and USABS will comply with the resulting guidance. 

Question 24. At this Subcommittee’s last hearing on amateur athletes, Mr. Han 

Xiao, Chair of the Athletes’ Advisory Council testified that NGBs would intentionally circumvent athlete representatives. He recounted a variety of tactics including: 

• Appointing rather than electing athlete representatives to sign documents; 

• Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on file to sign documents; 

• Giving an AAC representative a document with very little time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature; 

• And scheduling meetings such that competing athlete reps cannot attend, or removing what the NGB perceives to a problematic athlete representative and 

then failing to refill the position. 

Some of these tactics were employed by USA Taekwondo and documented in a 

2012 Section 10 Complaint against the NGB.16

Have you ever employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine the authority and responsibilities of your NGB’s athlete representatives? Will you commit to 

ensuring these tactics are never used again in the future? How will you ensure this? 

Answer. USABS has not employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine 

the authority and responsibilities of our NGB athlete representatives and we will 

commit to ensuring that those tactics are not used in the future. 

Question 25. The USOC has argued, time and again, to be dismissed from lawsuits because it has ‘‘no control’’ over NGBs. In fact, the evidence shows that USOC 

actually exercises a significant amount of control over NGBs, like your own. Please 

describe what policies, procedures, or guidelines are provided to NGBs through 

USOC. Please also describe any financial support, staffing, or legal support received 

from or funded by USOC. 

Answer. The USOC provides support and approval for athlete selection criteria, 

high performance plans, and Olympic-related procedures. They audit the USABS for 

compliance with the Amateur Sports Act and they provide non-discretionary grants 

for athlete support and programs. USOC personnel is available as needed for advice 

to NGB personnel. 

Question 26. Before the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established, did your NGB 

have the authority to suspend or ban a coach? 

Answer. Yes. 

113 

17https://www.teamusa.org/usa-taekwondo/v2-resources/legal/usat-suspension-list 18https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-child-abuse-is-se-1826279217 

Question 27. After the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s establishment in March 2017, 

does your NGB still have the authority to independently suspend or ban a coach, 

even if the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to do so? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 28. In August, the Center for SafeSport declined to defend its ban of 

Jean Lopez, a taekwondo coach it had determined, months earlier, was engaged in 

a ‘‘decades long pattern of sexual misconduct.’’ The Center then removed him from 

its database of sanctioned individuals. Despite this, Steve McNally, the President 

and CEO of USA Taekwondo, has kept Jean Lopez on USA Taekwondo’s suspension 

list.17 Do you think Mr. McNally’s decision was appropriate? Would you have made 

the same decision? Why or why not? 

Answer. I do not feel that I have enough information about the situation to determine if the U.S. Center for SafeSport was right or wrong in their actions, or that 

Steve McNally was right or wrong in his actions. 

Question 29. What consequences have and will you impose on member clubs that 

do not take your NGB’s banned and suspended lists seriously? Please explain what 

enforcement mechanisms you have. How often have you exercised such enforcement 

mechanisms? Please detail. 

Answer. Member clubs that choose to work with individuals on the banned or suspended list will immediately forfeit their membership with USABS and that decision will be announced on the USABS website. To date, no clubs have been found 

in violation of this. 

Question 30. How regularly on background checks conducted on your members? 

Answer. Athlete members do not go through background checks. All employees 

and individuals who interact with athletes beyond an officiating capacity or public 

interaction capacity go through biennial background screenings. 

Question 31. There are criticisms that the term ‘‘SafeSport,’’ according to a 

Deadspin article, was developed and trademarked by the USOC to serve as ‘‘a pleasant-sounding euphemism for a horrible set of acts.’’ 18 How you lead by example, 

when it comes to making sure sexual abuse is not merely swept under the rug as 

‘‘SafeSport’’ issues? 

Answer. The term ‘‘SafeSport’’ is understood by NGBs as representing a multitude 

of athlete-protection infractions, ranging from encouraging an injured athlete to return to play pre-maturely to sexual assault or rape. My experience has been that 

SafeSport issues are taken very seriously and I have not seen or heard of any getting swept under the rug. 

Question 32. What does a pedophile or sexual predator look like? 

Answer. My understanding is that a pedophile or sexual predator could look like 

anyone. 

Question 33. In your experience investigating sexual misconduct complaints, I’m 

sure you often receive character witness statements from parents and athletes 

themselves. Have you found that there’s any correlation between such statements 

and whether the individual is actually guilty? How much weight should be placed 

in such character witness statements? Can you commit to reducing the weight—if 

any—that your NGB currently places on such statements during an investigation? 

Answer. We currently have no experience using character witnesses for investigating sexual misconduct claims and I have no reason to believe that will change 

in the future. 

Question 34. Do you agree that it is possible for an individual to be respectful to 

certain individuals, and abusive toward others? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 35. What is the process in which your NGB keeps its respective website 

and other publications up to date listing banned or temporarily suspended individuals by the Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. If the Center for SafeSport bans or suspends an individual from USABS, 

the website will be updated immediately upon notification of the ban or suspension. 

Question 36. Does your NGB have a dedicated staff member update these lists? 

If so, what is the position title of said staffer? 

Answer. The current responsibility for updating the website, including these lists, 

is the Director of Marketing and Communications. 

Question 37. How often are these lists checked to keep current? On a daily basis? 

114 

Answer. These lists will be current because they will be updated upon each notification of a ban or suspension from the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Question 38. I understand that arbitration is the general process used by the Center for SafeSport to address disputes. 

Answer. That is my understanding as well. 

Question 39. Who pays for your NGB’s attorney fees in arbitration? Is it supported 

in any way by USOC? 

Answer. Our NGB is responsible for attorney fees in arbitration. It is my understanding that the USOC does not fund arbitration expenses for NGBs. 

Question 40. Who pays for athletes’ attorney fees in arbitration? Do you provide 

any assistance for athlete’s attorney fees? 

Answer. It is my understanding that athletes are responsible for paying their attorney fees in arbitration. 

Question 41. What assistance do you receive from the USOC when in arbitration? 

What kind of legal guidance does the USOC provide in such cases? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the USOC limits legal guidance on arbitration to explaining the correct AAA process. 

Question 42. Arbitration proceedings can be re-victimizing for survivors, who must 

relive their most painful memories under a grueling cross-examination. Questions 

asked by the opposing side have reportedly included intimate questions about an individual’s personal sexual history. 

Do you believe such questions about an individual’s sexual history relevant? How 

so? Can you commit to barring any such questions from further arbitration or legal 

proceedings? 

Answer. I do not have legal expertise, experience or training, so I do not feel 

qualified to answer that question. 

Question 43. Former USA Swimmer and Olympic Gold medalist Nancy HogsheadMakar has noted that women are largely missing from leadership positions throughout swimming’s more competitive levels. While women represent just over 50 percent of coaches in the sport nationwide, a meager fraction of women comprise the 

elite ranks of the sport. As recently as 2016, the U.S. Olympic swim team had no 

female coaches. What, in your opinion, is the reason for the dearth of women coaching at Olympic levels, and other elite coaching levels in the sport? 

Answer. I am not informed enough about USA Swimming to speculate on that situation. 

Question 44. Do you believe that a lack of female coaches is problematic? 

Answer. Yes. There are differences in male and female athletes so it is important 

to have perspectives from male and female coaches. 

Question 45. Do you believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task Force, or 

other coaching summits aimed at female coaches is sufficient to actually reduce gender disparity at elite levels? 

Answer. I am not informed enough about the Women in Coaching Task Force to 

have an opinion on its effectiveness. 

Question 46. Beyond these leadership resources, what is your NGB doing to 

change the culture that currently stifles women leaders within sport? 

Answer. It is crucial to identify and remove obstacles that deny interested women 

the opportunity to become sport leaders. USABS has a strong female leadership 

presence at the staff level and has actively developed high-potential female coaches. 

Question 47. Do you agree that more female coaches at an elite level would make 

athletes safer? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 48. The AAC has reported concerns that the Athlete Ombudsman does 

not act independently of the USOC leadership. Would you agree that the Athlete 

Ombudsman should be moved outside the USOC structure to an Office of Inspector 

General or another external office? 

Answer. If that change resulted in an improvement over the current structure, I 

would support it. 

Question 49. Do you believe that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is sufficiently 

independent from the USOC? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 50. What conflicts of interest currently exist that prevent the Center 

from achieving true independence? 

Answer. I am not aware of any conflicts of interest that keep the Center from 

achieving true independence. 

115 

Question 51. Do you think former employees of the USOC should be working at 

the U.S. Center for SafeSport? 

Answer. I don’t have an opinion on whether former employees of the USOC should 

or should not be working at the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

Question 52. Do you understand how this would compromise the Center’s independence? 

Answer. If an employee of the U.S. Center for SafeSport is not independent of the 

USOC, then I understand how this would compromise the Center’s independence. 

Question 53. Would you support the creation of an Office of Inspector General office—like the oversight branches of Federal or state agencies—to independently investigate internal abuse, mismanagement or misconduct and promote efficiency and 

effectiveness at the USOC, U.S. Center for Safe Sport, and National Governing Bodies? 

Answer. If the creation of an Office of Inspector General office resulted in an improvement over the current structure, I would support it. 

Question 54. Regarding health insurance for athletes, what criteria does your 

NGB use to determine which athletes receive paid health insurance coverage either 

through the NGB or USOC? What percentage of the cost of this health insurance 

coverage are your respective athletes or their families responsible for? 

Answer. All National Team athletes who compete at the World Cup level are offered Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI). This insurance covers non-sport related injuries and illnesses and 100 percent of the premiums are covered by the 

USABS. 

Question 55. What percentage of your athletes receive health insurance through 

the Elite Health Insurance Plan (EHIP)? Does this program cover sports-or competition-related injuries? Does this program cover non-competition-related injuries? 

Answer. All National Team athletes who compete at the World Cup level are offered Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI). This insurance covers non-sport related injuries and illnesses. 

Question 56. Does your NGB terminate the insurance of athletes whose injuries 

may impact their competition status? If so, how much notice is provided to the athlete? 

Answer. No. 

Question 57. Please describe any other NGB-or USOC-sanctioned health insurance 

programs available to member athletes and whether those programs are paid for by 

the NGB or USOC. 

Answer. All athlete members receive sport-accident insurance. The premiums are 

100 percent paid by USABS. This insurance covers sport-related injuries. 

Question 58. Does this health insurance program provide coverage for mental 

health services? 

Answer. EAHI does cover mental health services. 

Question 59. Do you believe that mental health services are important for athletes? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 60. Do you believe that it is or should be your NGB’s responsibility to 

provide mental health services and coverage for athletes? 

Answer. If not covered by EAHI, yes. 

Question 61. Beyond insurance coverage, what mental health services does your 

respective NGB currently provide for athletes? Are these services available to all 

athletes under the NGB’s purview, or just athletes at elite levels? What can your 

NGB specifically do to improve your athlete wellness and mental health support 

services for athletes? 

Answer. We support athletes who seek support outside of the insurance coverage 

on a case-by-case basis. We recently supported an athlete through leveraging our 

partnership with the USOC and accommodated her treatment needs. 

Question 62. What is the process for an athlete at your NGB to take advantage 

of these mental health services—for example, do they have to first notify their coach 

or an executive at your NGB? 

Answer. We do not currently have a clearly defined process, but are committed 

to creating one. 

Question 63. Do you think that in cases regarding mental health services, it is 

appropriate to require an athlete to first notify their coach or NGB leadership of 

a potential mental health problem before receiving treatment or assistance? 

Answer. It should not be required as a condition for receiving treatment or assistance. 

116 

Question 64. Do you agree that such a policy places athletes in a position where 

they can potentially be retaliated against, or further abused? 

Answer. If an athlete is being abused or an NGB has a culture where retaliation 

is permitted, then yes. 

Question 65. Do you agree that at the very least, such a policy could prevent athletes from coming forward to take advantage of critical mental health services? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 66. What was your NGB’s total budget in Fiscal Year 2017? Answer. $3,813,031 

Question 67. How much (dollar amount or percentage) of the budget came from 

the USOC either directly or in the form of grants? Answer. $2,287,033, 60 percent 

Question 68. What percentage of your budget goes to direct athlete support in the 

form of a stipend? How many athletes receive a stipend? Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017 it was $264,000, 12 percent. In the current Fiscal 

Year, all National Team athletes competing at the World Cup level will receive a 

stipend. 

Question 69. Does USOC have any role in budgeting decisions within your NGB? 

Answer. No, but the USOC does have a role in how USOC grants are utilized. 

Question 70. Does your current NGB budget limit your ability to provide services 

to athletes? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 71. Does it limit your ability to implement and adhere to Center for Safe 

Sport policy, or to conduct thorough internal investigations on complaints of misconduct? 

Answer. No. 

Question 72. Does USOC have the ability to direct your NGB in making decisions 

related to Olympic competition? 

Answer. No. 

Question 73. Does your NGB have a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy, so that an adult is never 

alone with an athlete? Why or why not? Have you considered such a policy? 

Answer. If the athlete is a minor, yes. 

Question 74. Has USOC ever asked NGBs to consider a ‘‘two-deep’’ policy? 

Answer. I am not aware of that specific request being made. 

Question 75. Most child-safety experts recommend a policy of not texting a minor 

individually. In other words, coaches can text others in a group, or can include parents on the text, but should not text athletes individually. Why hasn’t your NGB 

adopted such a policy to ensure inappropriate conversations are not taking place? 

Answer. We have adopted such a policy. 

Question 76. I have specifically heard multiple accounts that you sought to silence 

Mr. Han Xiao, Chair of the AAC, at the recent USOC Assembly. 

Answer. The Senator was misinformed. 

Question 77. During a breakfast meeting with the AAC and NGB Council, you aggressively spoke to him for voicing concerns regarding the very athletes he was 

elected to represent. 

Answer. The Senator was misinformed. 

Question 78. According to reports, you chastised Mr. Xiao for discussing his concerns with USOC and NGBs and suggestions for reform with this Subcommittee. 

Answer. The Senator was misinformed. The topic of Mr. Xiao’s discussions of is 

concerns with the USOC and NGB’s were never mentioned. Mr. Xiao’s suggestions 

for reform with the Subcommittee were never mentioned. I never addressed Mr. 

Xiao separately from the overall AAC. 

Question 79. What type of signal do you think that sends to the athletes in your 

sport? 

Answer. Had the fictional accounts of that meeting been accurate, the signal it 

would send to the athletes in my sport would have been a negative one. If the athletes in my sport had an accurate account of that meeting, the signal it would send 

is that honesty, integrity and bold leadership are the way we live our values in the 

USABS. We speak the truth and expect integrity from others. 

Question 80. Do you believe that publicly attacking Mr. Xiao for his suggestions 

to this Subcommittee is the appropriate way to vent your frustrations? 

Answer. The Senator was misinformed. I do not believe that publicly attacking 

Mr. Xiao for his suggestions to this Subcommittee is the appropriate way to vent 

my frustrations, which is one reason I did not do it. 

117 

Question 81. Why do you believe that it was inappropriate for Mr. Xiao to make 

recommendations to this Subcommittee? 

Answer. I do not believe that it was inappropriate for Mr. Xiao to make recommendations to this Subcommittee. On the contrary, as Chair of the USOC AAC, 

it was Mr. Xiao’s duty to make recommendations to this Subcommittee. 

Question 82. Do you want to apologize to Mr. Xiao or the athletes you represent 

for this behavior? 

Answer. If the reports provided to the Senator had been true, I would owe Mr. 

Xiao an apology. In this meeting, I reminded the members of the AAC that when 

one of them speaks, that person represents all of them. Therefore, when inaccurate 

or misleading information is provided to the media by a member of the AAC, they 

have an ethical responsibility to correct the record. I also told them that the NGBs 

would love to join forces in their fight for making positive changes in the Olympic 

movement, but I cannot do that if their tactics are unethical. 

The vast majority of the AAC and Olympic athletes are highly ethical, and that 

is one of the reasons that I raised this particular issue. A very small minority of 

athletes is taking advantage of the media attention available to them right now to 

push their own agenda. Those individuals do not represent the majority of the athletes. 

Question 83. In your opinion, is your organization living up to its mission of being 

‘‘responsible for fielding teams for national and international competition’’? 

Answer. Our organization does field teams for international competition, but that 

quote is not from our mission statement. In 2007 our current mission statement was 

established and the only change was an update to the initials from USBSF to 

USABS: The mission of USABS shall be to enable United States athletes to achieve 

sustained competitive excellence in Olympic competition and to promote and grow 

the sports of bobsled and skeleton in the United States. 

Question 84. Do you believe that fielding a team requires a financial commitment 

by your organization? 

Answer. It is desired, but not required. Our goal is to one day be able to fund 

100 percent of the expenses for all teams/athletes at all levels, but that has never 

been achieved in our organization’s history. We have published criteria for how we 

field teams at all levels, but full-funding is only provided to the top-ranked teams/ 

athletes in the highest race series. 

Question 85. What percentage of the USA National Team are you funding? 

Answer. We are fully funding 91 percent of the 2018–2019 U.S. National Teams 

on the World Cup tour. 

Question 86. What is your current salary? And by contrast, how much money has 

the USABS committed to national team athlete support for the 2018–19 season? Answer. My current salary is $180,000. National team athlete support for 2018– 19 is $2,103,265. 

Question 87. What percentage of the 2018–19 operating budget is earmarked for 

direct athlete support? 

Answer. Direct Athlete Support is defined as money given to athletes in the form 

of a cash stipend, which is intended to assist athletes in covering expenses while 

they are training and competing. The percentage of the 2018–19 operating budget 

committed to Direct Athlete Support (stipends) is 7 percent. 

This metric has been inaccurately interpreted as the only representation of athlete support. Stipends allow athletes to pay their bills without having to get jobs 

that distract from their training or competing. Direct Athlete Support does not include the technology and equipment provided by the NGBs, the coaches, or the travel expenses provided on the competitive tour. When those additional athlete benefits 

are included with the cash to athletes, the percentage increases to 72 percent. Also 

not included in Direct Athlete Support is free lodging, meals, and sports medicine 

provided at the Olympic Training Centers, although those expenses are incurred by 

the USOC rather than the NGBs. 

Question 88. And what percentage of the 2018–19 budget is slated for administrative/coaching salaries? 

Answer. The 2018–19 budget includes administrative/coaching salaries of 39 percent. I would like to remind the Senator and the Subcommittee that sports like bobsled and skeleton do not have the benefit of high school or college feeder programs, 

so we are 100 percent responsible for developing and hiring all the coaches for our 

programs. 

Question 89. During the hearing, you said that ‘‘getting feedback from the athletes 

is one of the most important things in identifying maybe some unknown issues that 

are out there.’’ A number of Skeleton athletes recently wrote you a petition outlying 

118 

a number of their grievances. Do you think that that 21 members—a significant percentage—of the USABS team writing a letter expressing its concerns with the financial management of USABS represents that the NGB is headed in the right direction? 

Answer. The short answer is that 21 (anonymous) athlete members of USABS 

writing a letter expressing their concerns with the financial management of USABS 

does not signal that an NGB is—or is not headed in the right direction. The USABS 

Board and leadership present the financials to the members annually and invite 

them to ask questions. Had the concerns raised in the petition been asked at the 

Annual Meeting when the budget and financial statements were presented, we 

would have gladly answered the questions, explained the statements and addressed 

concerns. 

Question 90. Did you take this letter seriously? Do you believe that any of the 

concerns mentioned in the letter are valid? Have you attempted to engage with the 

athlete activists that helped write the letter beyond your written reply? 

Answer. I did take the letter seriously, as did my board of directors. All athlete 

concerns are valid. In addition to the written reply, I have spoken with Athlete Representatives on the Board. Although I don’t know which athletes helped write the 

letter, I offered the opportunity for any athletes to pose questions at a recent allathlete meeting. I have also engaged two members of the USOC AAC leadership 

team, including the Chair, Han Xiao for their feedback. 

Question 91. Are you willing to restore funds to athletes? 

Answer. The hard truth about Olympic sports is that funding is based on performance. The performances went down and the funding went down with it. When performance goes back up, funding will increase. 

Question 92. Are you willing to withhold a percentage of your salary to help reinstate a basic level of funding for National Team Athletes? 

Answer. The majority of National Team athletes competing on the World Cup 

level still receive a basic level of funding, but no, I will not withhold a percentage 

of my salary to increase funding to athletes. 

Question 93. Why or why not? 

Answer. I have voluntarily given up bonuses and perks valued at more than 

$75,000 over the past two seasons—not because I wanted to fund particular programs, but because I didn’t think I earned them. If I were to give up more of my 

salary, I would put that money into those athletes with the highest potential to fight 

for medals at the Olympic Games. I will not support the demand to withhold a percentage of my salary to fund athletes for the same reason senators will not withhold 

a percentage of their salary to fund causes and programs they believe in. 

Question 94. Do you believe it’s possible to financially abuse athletes? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 95. Would you say your athletes have been financially abused? How 

would you describe their grievances? 

Answer. No, our athletes have not been financially abused by the organization. 

It is common for athletes to be frustrated by the lack of financial support available 

to those who are not ranked at the top of the sport. The top-ranked athletes do get 

financial support and they did not support the petition. 

Question 96. Are you aware that financial abuse and mismanagement are often 

factors that can breed a culture of further abuse, particularly sexual abuse? 

Answer. I’m aware of financial abuse as it relates to domestic and elder abuse by 

individuals who control the spending and finances of the victims. It’s a subject that 

should be taken seriously. I have never seen the concept applied to organizations. 

Question 97. In a letter responding to the skeleton athlete petition, you wrote that 

the ‘‘USABS’ financial condition is misstated and often misunderstood.’’ Is it true 

that Ashley Walden said ‘‘we’ve been operating in the red’’ on a conference call that 

included athletes? 

Answer. I was not on the call at that time, but I confirmed with Mrs. Walden that 

she did express that sentiment. She’s the Director of Sport and she was under the 

mistaken impression that USABS finished the year in the red. It was an honest 

mistake and I educated her. 

Question 98. Is it also true that USABS’ IRS 990 tax forms reveal that you have 

been operating in a surplus in recent years? How do you explain this variance in 

financial reality? 

Answer. Fiscal responsibility is very important to USABS. While we establish a 

challenging budget each year, our collective fiscal discipline allows us to satisfy 

those challenges and we finish in the black the vast majority of the time. 

119 

Question 99. Upon reviewing the USA Bobsled & Skeleton website, it is not immediately clear where, if at all, the information regarding athlete misconduct, or a list 

of banned or temporarily suspended individuals is located. 

Answer. The USABS does not have any individuals banned or suspended for athlete misconduct. If that changes, we will prominently display a list. 

Question 100. Does any information regarding these topics exist on your website 

or other publications? Can you commit to improving the visibility of this information 

on your site, for clubs and members of the sport to easily find it? 

Answer. The assumption that all NGBs have a list of banned and suspended athletes to display is inaccurate. USABS will commit to continuing our same high 

standards of transparency so that if a USABS individual is banned or suspended, 

we will prominently display a list. 

Question 101. During the hearing, when I asked whether you would voluntarily 

commit to increasing athlete representation to a majority on your boards and committees to ensure that their voices and concerns are heard, you answered ‘‘no’’ because you were concerned that doing so would undermine the competence of the 

board. You further added that many athletes ‘‘have not completed education.’’ Do 

you see how these statements can potentially come off as insulting to athletes? 

Answer. It is difficult to understand how athletes who have not completed education would be insulted by revealing that fact. It is difficult to understand how athletes who have completed their education would be insulted by revealing that many 

of their peers have not. There is no doubt that I could have been more clear in my 

response and I was surprised by how many athletes were insulted by my comments. 

Question 102. In your opinion, what are the educational requirements for members of the USABS Board? 

Answer. There are no educational requirements for members of the USABS 

Board. 

Question 103. Do you believe that increasing the age eligibility for athletes, allowing older athletes to participate on the Board would satisfy your concerns with athlete experience? 

Answer. I do support the idea of increasing the age eligibility for athletes representatives, but that is defined by the Amateur Sports Act and not within the authority of NBGs to change it. Nonetheless, it should be noted that older athletes are 

allowed to participate on the Board today. In addition to the three athlete representatives on our board, the USABS has two board members who are Olympians, but 

do not count as athlete representatives. One of which has BS and MS degrees in 

Public Health and Health Care Administration, and the other is a graduate of West 

Point with an MBA from Columbia. Their education, professional experience, and 

athletic backgrounds make them incredibly valuable and competent board members. 

Question 104. You also mentioned that you have been conducting a culture training with the entire USABS organization, though not necessarily related to SafeSport 

issues, because your organization has not experienced in ‘‘quite a while.’’ Do you believe that since your organization has had fewer cases of sexual misconduct than 

other NGBs, that frequent SafeSport training is not necessary? 

Answer. No, SafeSport training is very necessary and I would never suggest otherwise. We cannot get complacent or naı ̈ve to the potential risks and we must always look for ways to reduce them. 

Question 105. What do you mean by a ‘‘culture training’’ if it is not related to 

training and policy regarding sexual misconduct? 

Answer. USABS has partnered with People Academy to help develop a culture 

that reinforces our values of Teamwork, Commitment, and Integrity. Through a 

hands-on process with athletes, staff and coaches, we identified the following areas 

of focus: communication growth mindset, enjoy the journey, accountability, grit & 

family. We recently had additional training with staff, coaches and athletes and it 

was wildly successful. 

Question 106. As we discussed in the hearing, a member of the Skeleton Team 

was recently exposed to the sexually explicit content of a male coach. 

Answer. This situation was investigated and it was found that a male coach used 

his personal Apple Id to upgrade an app used for video review on a USABS iPad. 

He did not realize that his personal iCloud account would be available on that device as a result. A skeleton athlete found the personal iCloud account of the coach 

and found the personal content on that account. 

Question 107. Subsequently, other athletes were exposed too. 

Answer. After finding the inappropriate content on the iPad, the athlete shared 

it with other athletes. 

120 

Question 108. Athletes took the correct protocol in reporting the situation, and a 

trusted athlete representative was brought in to handle the situation. Safe Sport 

was contacted, and the USOC–AAC representative was brought in to help resolve 

the matter. Athletes were told through representatives that appropriate disciplinary 

action would take place. However, nothing was done, and the scandal was seemingly 

ignored. 

Answer. We treat code of conduct violations like HR issues and we do not make 

them public. The fact that athletes were not informed of any disciplinary action does 

not mean disciplinary action did not take place or that the issue was ignored. It’s 

unfortunate that so many people, including Senators, are reluctant to educate athletes on the realities of such things. 

Question 109. Can you please provide a written account of how this case was handled further, as you promised in the hearing? Were you informed by the USOC–AAC 

representative of these explicitly sexual content? 

Answer. Appropriate disciplinary action did take place and the situation was handled. The coach in question updated a video analysis app by using his Apple ID and 

unintentionally exposed his personal iCloud account. Athletes realized this and reviewed the content on the personal file and shared it without the coach’s consent. 

After learning of the situation, the USABS Board immediately brought the case 

to the U.S. Center for SafeSport for an investigation into the original situation and 

the way it was handled. The goal of USABS is to ensure it was handled correctly 

and to learn from any aspect that was not handled correctly. It is currently an active investigation and I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss any additional details. 

Question 110. Do you think it’s appropriate or professional that a coach would expose himself to athletes in this manner? 

Answer. The exposure was unintentional as the coach did not realize that the 

iPad was connected to his personal iCloud account. Nonetheless, it was unprofessional and the coach is responsible for any loss of coaching effectiveness he experienced as a result. 

Question 111. Was any disciplinary action taken? Why not? 

Answer. The coach was counseled on his responsibility to keep this type of thing 

from happening and if the situation impacted his ability to lead his athletes, it 

would be considered a performance issue. 

Question 112. Did you tell the representative that you would take disciplinary action on the coach? 

Answer. Yes, and the original plan was to keep the coach from attending the 

World Championships and I shared that with the representative. That decision was 

not due to disciplinary action and was later changed. 

Question 113. Why was this case not published on your website to warn members 

of USABS of this coach’s behavior? 

Answer. The exposure was not found to be a violation of SafeSport because it was 

unintentional and did not involve minors. 

Question 114. When said coach then made light of the situation on social what 

action was taken? If no action was taken, why not? 

Answer. The coach was embarrassed to have his private pictures shared among 

athletes and this approach was seen to be a way to help all involved move forward. 

Question 115. Can you see how this case demonstrated to athletes that the established channels for athlete grievances apparently do not work? 

Answer. No, I can see how this case demonstrated to athletes that sometimes 

their expectations are not met. It is a mistake to tell athletes that they should define the effectiveness of going through the established channels by whether or not 

their expectations are met. 

Question 116. Can you see how inaction in this case has created a culture of fear 

among athletes, as they risk retribution for speaking up? 

Answer. No. The retaliation or retribution from athletes speaking up has never 

been alleged and perceived inaction does not create a culture of fear. 

Question 117. How do you plan to repair and strengthen the damaged relationship 

you have with USABS athletes? 

Answer. This situation has been unfortunate, but represents the valid right of 

athletes to challenge the leadership on decisions made in the organization. The way 

to strengthen the relationship with athletes is to acknowledge the issues raised, 

clarify the strategies that are misunderstood, and fix the issues that need to be 

fixed. That is happening now and the improvement has already been evident. 

121 

Question 118. Given USABS’ financial difficulties and inadequate fundraising, 

along with the seemingly confrontational relationship you have with USABS athletes and the AAC, do you believe that you are the right choice to lead USABS into 

the future? 

Answer. I disagree with the premise, but I do believe I am the right choice to lead 

USABS into the future. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO DARRIN STEELE

Question 1. Athlete and Community Engagement: To what extent are you personally—and your leadership and staff—actively engaging with both the Athletes’ Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programming to stamp 

out a culture of abuse that enabled predators to target athletes? 

Answer. My staff and I have been personally involved with the implementation 

of SafeSport policies and have invited any victims of abuse to come forward and report claims. During Board meetings, AAC members have been asked to provide their 

perspectives on potential areas of risk that need to be examined. Although a culture 

of abuse inside the USABS has never been alleged, we continue to monitor our programming and will make changes where necessary. 

Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are victims of sexual 

abuse to help direct your programs away from this widely reported culture of abuse 

that enabled predators? 

Answer. We are not aware of any elite-level athletes from USABS, who have been 

victims of sexual abuse at the hands of predators inside USABS. If we become 

aware, we will engage them and ask for their perspective. We have committed to 

engaging with a sexual assault survivor advocacy organization, to have them review 

our policies and procedures and suggest improvements. 

Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB? 

Answer. We have an open-door policy, a policy of non-retaliation, and conduct 

post-season athlete surveys that promise confidentiality to respondents. 

Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure that you are 

using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision making? 

Answer. Internally, we have increased the decision-making ability of the athletes 

by leaning on the AAC for some policies that directly impact the athletes. The latest 

example was regarding the fee required when an athlete files a waiver request. 

Some athletes communicated to us that they did not think the fee was fair, so we 

asked the AAC to review the policy and recommend a better one. We plan to change 

the policy based on the AAC recommendation. 

Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between athletes and administrators? 

Answer. I don’t know that it will be possible to eliminate all trust issues between 

athletes and administrators, but they should be minimized to the extent possible. 

Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who provide their 

opinions? 

Answer. We have a non-retaliation policy and we will consistently enforce it. 

Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created partnerships 

with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide examples. 

Answer. I don’t have enough information to have an opinion on that topic. 

Question 8. Do you currently employ a full-time staff member with sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe emotional, physical and 

sexual abuse? If so, please identify that person and their role. 

Answer. No. 

Question 9. Safesport: The Center for SafeSport must succeed. I think from all the 

testimony we have received during these hearings, and in many of my private meetings with survivors, advocates, leadership in sport including NGB’s, the USOC, and 

Safe Sport, we know that we must stimulate a culture of reporting. In 2017 testimony offered by Mr. Rick Adams, of the USOC, he said there was an 

‘‘. . .environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse. . .’’ at NGBs. 

Do you agree with Mr. Adam’s assessment of the culture within your organization 

prior to your tenure? 

Answer. It’s difficult to determine if that specific issue was part of the culture 

prior to my tenure, but it’s possible. 

Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific changes to address this ‘‘environment’’ that ‘‘discouraged victims from reporting abuse’’? 

122 

Answer. An environment that discourages victims from reporting abuse is likely 

a symptom of a much larger issue in the organization. Setting expectations of professionalism and ethical behavior for the staff and coaches is critical for establishing 

an environment where athletes do not feel discouraged from reporting abuse or raising other issues in the organization. I think we have done that in USABS. 

Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your sport and community? 

Answer. USABS aspires to serve as an example to other National Federations 

within the sport. As a member of the Executive Committee of the International Federation, I am also able to help create an environment that changes the international 

culture where it needs to be changed. 

Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or influence over athletes and 

their families? 

Answer. Our coaches and staff operate within a system of collaboration and selection of athletes to National Teams is based on written criteria which is used by selection committees. If the written criteria is violated, athletes may file a claim with 

an independent Judicial Committee for investigation. If a coach or staff member 

makes unethical decisions, athletes can file a claim with the independent Ethics 

Committee for investigation. 

The structure of the organization greatly reduces the risk of a coach or staff member abusing their power and there are remedies available if that is suspected of happening. 

Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of members of 

your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and teach them the value 

of SafeSport programs? 

Answer. Each youth membership prompts a notification to parents or guardians 

that directs them to SafeSport information and educational material about appropriate behavior from coaches and other adults. 

Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the USOC to 

communicate their material to all of their NGB’s and on to the member clubs? 

Answer. I do not have knowledge of what SafeSport has recommended to the 

USOC. 

Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or disseminate 

SafeSport information? 

Answer. We have found that the best way to disseminate SafeSport information 

is through in-person presentations. If that is not possible, e-mailing the information 

is the next best method. Having prominent links on the website and posted information in sports medicine facilities are important as well. 

Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what steps does 

your organization take to enforce that interim measure with limited information? 

Answer. We have not yet faced that situation, but it is understood that the Center 

has the authority to impose suspensions and bans, so we would enforce any recommendations regardless of having limited information. 

Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for athletes to report 

misconduct—either physical, emotional, or financial? 

Answer. Being a smaller NGB in terms of staff, coaches, and athletes, we are able 

to utilize multiple access points for athletes. In addition to being able to make a 

claim with the Center, athletes may go through their AAC representatives, coaches, 

staff or Board members. 

Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those reporting 

channels? 

Answer. By not requiring athletes to use limited reporting channels, they have 

the ability to avoid reporting to someone who may be perceived to have a conflict 

of interest. 

Question 19. Protection and Removal: What direct action is your organization taking not only to identify, but also to remove coaches, athlete directors, employees, 

and officials who witnessed either emotional or physical abuse of athletes and did 

nothing to stop it or report it to authorities? 

Answer. If we become aware of it, we will investigate and take appropriate action. 

Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs to be able 

to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements? 

Answer. We currently have only one member club and that club has not expressed 

any challenges to adhering to the SafeSport minimum requirements. 

123 

Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you are directed to 

uphold and where do they apply to? 

Answer. We have a duty to protect athlete members from abuse. 

Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training centers? 

Answer. This duty covers all programs and events in which the NGB participates 

and/or manages. 

Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member clubs? Member 

events? 

Answer. This duty extends to off-site venues, member clubs and member events. 

Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that protection? 

Answer. All covered individuals are responsible for that protection. 

Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional staff that are 

experts with survivors of sexual abuse? 

Answer. The only challenge to hiring additional staff would be financial, but if 

that resource was needed, that challenge would be overcome. 

Question 26. Ban Lists: Susanne Lyons, former Acting CEO and upcoming Board 

Chair of the USOC, said in her hearing testimony before the House Commerce Committee in May, that she committed to looking into creating and enforcement requirements that ‘‘ban lists’’ be made publicly available. I know a number of your organizations do post those lists. 

Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization? 

Answer. It is my understanding that all banned individuals need to be posted on 

NGB websites in the form of a list. 

Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from the USOC 

since the May testimony with regard to the NGB’s publishing accessible lists of all 

banned individuals? 

Answer. Each NGB is required to provide a banned or suspended list to the 

USOC. 

Question 28. Do these ban list’s work? What could be done to best disseminate 

this information? 

Answer. The USABS does not have any individuals currently suspended or 

banned, so I do not have an opinion of whether or not the lists work. 

Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for NGB member 

clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list? 

Answer. It is my understanding that NGB member clubs would lose their membership status with the NGB if they hired someone on the banned list. 

Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong policies to 

keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC or individual 

NGB’s? 

Answer. I am not aware of that demand, but it is possible that such a demand 

has been made to NGBs that have banned members. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

STEPHEN MCNALLY

Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act impacted your National 

Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and resource perspective? 

Answer. As a smaller NGB with limited staffing resources, the changes to the 

process have been helpful. The contribution of the Center’s expertise, in terms of 

both education and investigation (and subsequently, resolution) better enables USA 

Taekwondo to protect athletes. 

Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review cases, implement 

training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on how this is being implemented. 

Answer. USA Taekwondo will shortly fill a new position to be announced imminently, of ‘‘Head of Athlete Protection.’’ This role will ensure all policies are robust 

and implemented fully, develop the educational tools and programs, and will work 

with the Executive Director on the handling of any cases that come to us in future. 

Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer 

cases that are not sexual abuse to the Center for SafeSport? 

124 

Answer. Yes, USA Taekwondo handles non-sexual abuse allegations through its 

Ethics Committee. Depending on the nature of the allegations, USA Taekwondo 

may refer non-sexual abuse cases to the Center for SafeSport. 

Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the others? What 

portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo is a smaller NGB. Our typical total revenue is somewhere between $3m and $3.5m per year and our funding from the USOC ranges 

typically between $250k and $500k per year depending on how close we are to an 

Olympic Games. 

Question 5. Based on your NGB’s experiences in handling abuse allegations, did 

the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 

provide the necessary authorities to the Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address 

abuse allegations? If there are shortcomings, please identify them. 

Answer. One shortcoming is how long it can take to resolve an allegation. Specifically, it took several months for the Center to investigate and sanction both Steven 

Lopez and Jean Lopez. Another shortcoming relates to what record is required in 

order to make a decision. While the Center concluded that it had credible evidence 

that the Lopez brothers had committed egregious SafeSport violations as evidenced 

by the lifetime bans the Center imposed, when the Lopezes appealed, the alleged 

victims declined to participate due to ongoing civil litigation. As a consequence, both 

lifetime bans were ultimately overturned because the arbitrators had no live victim 

testimony against the Lopezes. 

While we support due process for the accused, these are not criminal proceedings 

and we question the apparent point of view among arbitrators that live victim testimony is a requirement. USA Taekwondo cannot fairly be asked to allow those facing 

egregious and unresolved allegations back into our community and our events. 

Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors regarding Larry 

Nassar’s sexual abuse under the guise of medical treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, expertise and access in one individual for a 

lengthy period of time was a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. 

Has your NGB updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 

happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has the 

structure of your medical staff changed? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo does not have a centralized system for appointing medical staff. Instead, medical staff are appointed from a pool. We have also implemented a two-deep leadership policy for medical staff, meaning that no athlete is 

treated in a room without another responsible adult being present. 

Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, what policies 

and procedures have you put in place regarding access, retention and preservation 

of athlete’s medical records? Have you provided those policies to USOC? 

Answer. [See our answer to Question 6 above. Yes, we have provided those policies to the USOC.] 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

STEPHEN MCNALLY

Question 1. First, I want to start off by saying I admire the bravery of the athletes 

who have come before this Committee previously to share their story. As a father 

and grandfather, I know that what happened to them is every parent’s worst nightmare. We live to protect our children, and it is disgusting to me that the individuals 

that they reported abuse to didn’t protect them. Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy organizations to have them review and suggest improvements to your policies and procedures to ensure with certainty that your athletes 

are protected from abuse? 

Answer. We are working closely with the Fighting Spirit group out of Michigan 

which educates young athletes on abuse prevention strategies, and plan to strengthen those ties still further in 2019. In addition, in 2018 we launched #Notinmysport, 

an education and athlete empowerment program that focuses on awareness of the 

many types of possible abuse and calls on athletes to ‘make their statement’ on the 

kinds of behavior they will not tolerate in their sport. 

Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to determine and 

measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report abuse? How recently were 

these surveys conducted? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo was one of three NGBs that participated in the U.S. 

Center for SafeSport’s Climate Survey in 2018, which covered this subject. The surVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:02 Jan 07, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57907.TXT JACKIE
125 

vey was drafted and administered by the Center and distributed to all athletes in 

the required demographic by USA Taekwondo. 

Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes understand what 

type of behavior from coaches or other adults is inappropriate and should be reported? 

Answer. In addition to the SafeSport policy and education requirements, as mentioned above, USA Taekwondo has engaged the Fighting Spirit group to work with 

us on this very important subject. All athletes who make the National Team in future will have to take the Fighting Spirit training, which Is specifically designed to 

educate young athletes not just on the signs of potentially inappropriate conduct, 

but also how to protect themselves from such abuses. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO STEPHEN MCNALLY

Question 1. Athlete and Community Engagement: To what extent are you personally—and your leadership and staff—actively engaging with both the Athletes’ Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programming to stamp 

out a culture of abuse that enabled predators to target athletes? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo worked very closely with the AAC last year to revise 

and strengthen both our travel and medical policies prior to a team trip to Taipei. 

This work led to the implementation of two deep leadership methodologies on that 

trip, that have now become official policy for all USA Taekwondo activities. We have 

engaged Fighting Spirit out of Michigan—an education and empowerment group led 

by a victim of sexual abuse—to deliver programming to all of our National Team 

and Academy athletes related to spotting the signs of abuse (or potential abuse) 

along with techniques to get yourself out of danger and safely report to the correct 

authorities. This is in addition to the SafeSport policies themselves, and our new 

social media #notinmysport campaign, which both educates and empowers athletes 

to speak out again all forms of abuse in sport. 

Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are victims of sexual 

abuse to help direct your programs away from this widely reported culture of abuse 

that enabled predators? 

Answer. This is not something USA Taekwondo has done yet but would very 

much like to do. Pending class action litigation against USA Taekwondo prevents 

direct victim communication at this time. Nonetheless, our new Head of Athlete 

Safety will be tasked will working with victims from other sports to gain key perspectives and advice from them once appointed early in 2019. 

Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo launched the #notinmysport social media campaign in 

2018, empowering athletes to demand the healthy, safe, competitive and successful 

environment they deserve from their sports. The campaign encourages athletes to 

‘make their statement’ on the issues that matter most to them, to encourage voices 

to speak up without fear of repercussions. 

Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure that you are 

using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision making? 

Answer. We have begun to engage much more frequently and deeply with the 

AAC, including on the aforementioned policy work and our Board SafeSport working 

group, through to giving the AAC an opportunity to vote on proposed selection procedures. 

Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between athletes and administrators? 

Answer. Sadly, yes. I believe USA Taekwondo has made significant progress in 

this area, but it will take time to truly build. A big problem with that has been our 

historically frequent turnover of leadership, and that needs to be fixed as it takes 

time to build a truly trusting relationship, even with the right people in charge. 

Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who provide their 

opinions? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo under my leadership will simply not tolerate any acts 

of retaliation. I have not seen this happen under my administration. Our small size 

and the infusion of people like me into the organization who do not have a history 

with the sport are positive factors where an anti-retaliation stance is concerned. 

Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created partnerships 

with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide examples. 

126 

Answer. Beyond the Center for SafeSport I have not experienced this, although 

I know that the new USOC CEO, Sarah Hirshland, is very focused on these matters. 

Question 8. Do you currently employ a full-time staff member with sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe emotional, physical and 

sexual abuse? If so, please identify that person and their role. 

Answer. We intend to appoint a Head of Athlete Safety in the very near future 

and are committed to ensuring excellent qualifications and providing training for 

that person. 

Question 9. Safesport: The Center for SafeSport must succeed. I think from all the 

testimony we have received during these hearings, and in many of my private meetings with survivors, advocates, leadership in sport including NGB’s, the USOC, and 

Safe Sport, we know that we must stimulate a culture of reporting. In 2017 testimony offered by Mr. Rick Adams, of the USOC, he said there was an 

‘‘. . .environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse. . .’’ at NGBs. 

Do you agree with Mr. Adam’s assessment of the culture within your organization 

prior to your tenure? 

Answer. I do not believe Mr. Adams was speaking of our NGB specifically. Because I was not a part of the organization at the time, it is difficult for me to agree 

or disagree with Mr. Adams’ assessment. However, the current combination of the 

SafeSport policy, Center for SafeSport and a new administration ensures that USA 

Taekwondo does more to proactively encourage reporting today than at any time 

previously. 

Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific changes to address this ‘‘environment’’ that ‘‘discouraged victims from reporting abuse’’? 

Answer. The #notinmysport campaign described above, rapid responses to abuse 

reports including SafeSport reporting, law enforcement reporting, and the use of interim and permanent suspensions, and open communication with the membership. 

Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your sport and community? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo is making sure no one individual who has authority 

over athletes within our organization is all powerful, and we are encouraging the 

wider community to be educated and vigilant in relation to spotting and reporting 

abuse. We will continue to encourage member coaches to not make their students 

call them ‘‘master’’ or ‘‘sir,’’ rather ‘‘coach’’ or, even better, use their actual name— 

athletes are told to call our National Coaching Directors simply Paul and Gareth. 

Taekwondo in particular is a sport with long held traditions of not questioning your 

instructor and reversing that will be a long (and much objected to) task, but one 

that USA Taekwondo will continue to pursue. 

Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or influence over athletes and 

their families? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo has employed two coaches who do not, and will not be 

allowed to run their own schools—they will simply train the athletes. We have employed two deep leadership policies to any and all athlete interactions, to ensure 

that no athlete is ever completely alone with a coach. 

Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of members of 

your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and teach them the value 

of SafeSport programs? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo is currently rolling out the new SafeSport training for 

athletes and parents and will continue to develop and grow the #notimysport campaign to educate and empower everyone to be vigilant and aware. In addition, all 

National Team athletes will now take the Fighting Spirit training. 

Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the USOC to 

communicate their material to all of their NGB’s and on to the member clubs? 

Answer. We have a direct relationship with the SafeSport Center, so material 

comes from them, not from the USOC. The USOC does audit USA Taekwondo 

though to ensure we are complying with any and all requirements. 

Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or disseminate 

SafeSport information? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo extensively uses social media to communicate with its 

members, and this has definitely been the most successful method, both for communication and stimulation of debate. We also use our website, and e-mail for messaging purposes. 

Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what steps does 

your organization take to enforce that interim measure with limited information? 

127 

Answer. USA Taekwondo enforces the suspension completely, immediately making the member ineligible to participate in any way within the organization. 

Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for athletes to report 

misconduct—either physical, emotional, or financial? 

Answer. We have a reporting form on our website, including the ability to report 

anonymously. Reports also come in direct to the SafeSport Center, via e-mail and 

by telephone. 

Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those reporting 

channels? 

Answer. All reports are handled the same way if directed to USA Taekwondo. The 

Executive Director will decide whether to file the complaint with either the Ethics 

Committee or the SafeSport Center. All complaints will be referred to one or the 

other. 

Question 19. Protection and Removal: What direct action is your organization taking not only to identify, but also to remove coaches, athlete directors, employees, 

and officials who witnessed either emotional or physical abuse of athletes and did 

nothing to stop it or report it to authorities? 

Answer. We are not aware of any such allegations against current employees or 

coaches. USA Taekwondo hired two coaches from overseas who are completely new 

to the organization with no history in the U.S. as National Coaching Directors. 

Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs to be able 

to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements? 

Answer. We do not believe there are any major challenges for our clubs to adhere 

to the SafeSport minimum requirements. 

Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you are directed to 

uphold and where do they apply to? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo must adhere to all applicable SafeSport requirements 

and carry out its mandatory reporting duties. We also use interim and permanent 

suspensions where appropriate, regardless of whether this is a minimum requirement. USA Taekwondo must also lead efforts to educate its community e.g., how to 

spot the signs of abuse early and the importance of reporting. 

Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training centers? 

Answer. USA Taekwondo is committed to carrying out the duties described in 

Questions 3, above, in all aspects of its daily operations and events. 

Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member clubs? Member 

events? 

Answer. We provide mandatory background checks and SafeSport training to all 

members who may have authority over athletes, including clubs, etc., which broadens the protection and education to improve safety for all. We are best able to protect athletes in environments that we can control such as our own events. 

Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that protection? 

Answer. This would largely depend on the circumstance. As the Executive Director, I am responsible for implementing policies and procedures to protect athletes. 

On National Team trips, the most senior staff member or coach would be the most 

responsible for protecting the athletes. Within a member club, the club owner would 

be the most responsible for protecting the athletes. 

Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional staff that are 

experts with survivors of sexual abuse? 

Answer. In order to meet the needs of the entire athlete population, we are committed to hiring a Head of Athlete Protection who has the qualifications and will 

be provided with the training to further our effort to protect athletes from all kinds 

of abuse. However, we have limited financial resources. This is why we are so supportive of the Center for SafeSport and want to see it succeed. 

Question 26. Ban Lists: Susanne Lyons, former Acting CEO and upcoming Board 

Chair of the USOC, said in her hearing testimony before the House Commerce Committee in May, that she committed to looking into creating and enforcement requirements that ‘‘ban lists’’ be made publicly available. I know a number of your organizations do post those lists. 

Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization? 

Answer. No, but USA Taekwondo has published its suspension list publicly for 

many years, so there has been no need to request this of USA Taekwondo. 

Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from the USOC 

since the May testimony with regard to the NGB’s publishing accessible lists of all 

banned individuals? 

Answer. See answer above. 

128 

Question 28. Do these ban list’s work? What could be done to best disseminate 

this information? 

Answer. It depends on what is meant by ‘‘work.’’ If a parent were to check the 

list before allowing their child to participate at a member club and decided against 

their child’s participation based on the club owner’s name being on the list, then 

the list works. But this depends on a parent taking this step. Moreover, the vast 

majority of taekwondo practitioners, probably around 90 percent, never have any 

contact with USA Taekwondo so may not even know it exists. If information about 

all coaches involved in youth sports, regardless of their membership status with an 

NGB, were to be centralized, e.g., via a licensing system, then this would be a better 

way to notify the public of a sanction against the individual. 

Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for NGB member 

clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list? 

Answer. If a member club hires a coach on the banned list USA Taekwondo will 

write to that member club immediately upon learning of this and inform them that 

we have information that this is happening, and request confirmation that the coach 

has been terminated. If the club does not confirm that the coach in question has 

been removed the club itself will be banned from any involvement with the NGB. 

Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong policies to 

keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC or individual 

NGB’s? 

Answer. USOC continues to work collaboratively with NGB’s in this area but I 

have not received a ‘‘demand’’ of this nature. USA Taekwondo enforces its policy 

that banned individuals cannot participate in or even enter events sanctioned by the 

NGB. 

Æ