JIM EADE IS CORRECT

By Larry Parr

Jim Eade is correct to assert that drug testing per se had little to do
with his being fired. He was canned because a board majority wanted to get rid
of him. Don Schultz had a lot to do with putting together that majority, and
he is to be praised for this work in this instance.

Mr. Eade refers to GM Seirawan getting his facts wrong. I pointed out a
single date typo or lapsus (1984 instead of 1994). Otherwise, nearly all of
what Seirawan wrote in his long message got the story right. When he was
unclear about something, he said so.

In other postings Mr. Eade is still referring to a Delegates' resolution
praising the "team" as a way of trying to save face.

Most of you understand that the resolution passed by the Delegates was a
way to grease the skids for Mr. Eade's departure. In effect, they said, "don't
let the door kick you on the way out!"A traditional Federation practice is to
give a vote of confidence to those who will soon be gone and to thank those who
are being canned.

Most of you understand that the key battle at the Delegates meeting was a
resolution introduced by Mr. Eade's main allies that would have made it much
less difficult for the Executive Board to fire him. That motion could not
muster the votes, and Mr. Eade got a sop. If he had not then resigned, he
would have been fired.