pcpfeiffer.com

This is a bizarre story.  He (Rick Curl), the swimming instructor and she (Kelley, then-Davies) the thirteen year-old student began a four-year sexual relationship almost thirty years ago.  They both thought they were (or actually were) in love.  Her parents discovered it through her diary and it was immediately over.

Everyone agreed to conceal it through a written “contract” whereby Curl paid the Davies family $150,000 over the next eleven years.  (Contract is in quotes because it may or may not be proper and binding.)

What hasn’t been explained yet is that the Washington Post inquiry was apparently instigated by a USA Swimming investigation:

Currin said that a USA Swimming investigator contacted her and her parents two months ago. USA Swimming on Monday night initiated a National Board of Review proceeding, requesting an expedited hearing and inviting the alleged victim to testify, according to USA Swimming spokeswoman Jamie Fabos Olsen. Fabos Olsen said the organization moved to take action last Friday after receiving the non-disclosure agreement.

The Sandusky/Penn State scandal notwithstanding it is curious why this has been divulged and publicized now.  The Post has published the entire “confidential” legal agreement!  The comments by Washington Post readers are fascinating–some are intelligent and cover the legal implications of the situation.

My feeling is the contract/agreement is probably void in its entirely in that it deals with concealing a crime (statutory rape).  So, it can, technically, be disclosed.  Nonetheless, it is an untoward revelation for everyone involved–the victim, the predator, the parents, the civil lawyers, and prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.  I think that is why it is a good and provocative story, plus it is one that has legs in terms of subsequent inquiries, perhaps more victims, and even the Olympics.

*           *          *

Perhaps America is waking up from it’s idoltry of people in power.

and

It is irrelevant whether you are gay, straight, bi, etc. Your obligation to respect a child is exactly the same: You don’t take advantage of them even if they are wildly attractive, flirty, experienced, etc. You are the adult entrusted with someone’s kid and you are supposed to protect them and set a good example of ethical behavior, which precludes sexual and/or romantic activity.

Is it just because it is on my mind?  I use the word “corruption.”  It is people in power, people in a position of trust, doing what they want to do rather than what they should do.  It is a failure to see the big picture and to understand the ramifications and consequences.  If they/you do not understand than you must learn (or get out) — that is what is required and expected from you.  It is your job and your responsibility to know better.