STATE OF PLAY

While to-date I, Phil Innes, and Larry Parr, have both encouraged openning
up this issue so that all can see 'who is clean and who is not', and
especially that USCF members can make their own assessment, and to let the
chips lie where they may... It is fascinating to read that this is
partisanship! Though how Lary Parr and I can possibly be on the same team
for this issue is unexplained [though surely someone will try now!] In fact,
this issue will not even be contested or resolved by either of us - since
the intent is for the members to do that.

Equally fascinating is who does /not want/ the issue opened up. At least 4
recent commentators here, Brennan + 3 single-issue posters; the
not-a-Christian 'Reverend' Walker, Litigious-Laugherty, and Mike '48'
Murray, cannot bring themselves to support members coming to their own
conclusions by assessing all sides of the issue.

Who else can't manage to say much who is a 'frequent-contributor' to this
subject? Well, there is ChessCafe's columnist Jerry Spinrad. But the main
absentee from openness of communcation is Sam Sloan himself.

SLOAN'S OPTIONS

After an entire year of preaching to us that openning up the secretive can
of worms at USCF was his own dedicated mission, where is Sam Sloan now, when
it comes right down to it?

And finally, the last party not to aver allowing the members to make up
their own minds, rather than whatever is currently going on in the secret
recessess, is USCF itself. In 3 days the editorial deadline is reached, and
if USCF decline to accept either making their own statement, or to accept
the offer to open the secret doors, then I will be obliged to say so. To
respond or not is entirely USCF's own business, but it does have
consequences:-

REASONABLE DOUBT

Since this is a very specific instance of official secrecy then the
speculatory boot -the reasonable doubt- will be on the other foot, no? Since
what business /should/ need be secret in a public non-profit which exists to
promote and administer chess in the USA [excepting personnel records, and
such mandated federal confidential matters].

The biggest stimulus to affronting 'official secrets' would be if Sam Sloan
should support Susan Polgar on this issue, by also declaring that the light
should shine on all this matter - as he himself said most consistently of
all for an entire year - and indeed, who could possibly object then?

Phil Innes