(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
On 4 Dec 2003 09:45:32 -0800, (Bruce
Leverett) wrote:

In one of the predecessors to this thread I asked:
BTW wasn't Eade "fired" (an oversimplification) over drug testing?
Wasn't Tanner more or less his replacement?

This message from Seirawan more or less answers my question. Yes,
drug testing was a major factor in Eade's resignation having been
accepted. It's not easy for me, reading only RGCP, to figure out who
the major players are and why the major decisions get made. But I
suspected that Seirawan was pulling the strings, and I am glad that
this has been clarified, even though I regret that all this dirty
laundry had to be hung out for such a large audience (and that I may
have had a hand in provoking it).

I do not think there is anything sinister about a major donor like
Seirawan controlling the selection of FIDE representatives. It's
unthinkable that if someone is funding the U.S. Championship, and
probably providing the lion's share for the Olympiad teams, he
wouldn't have a major role in our relations with FIDE.

You have it completely wrong. Yasser Seirawan does not attand USCF
delegate's meetings nor does he attend executive board meetings. I
have never heard his name even mentioned as exapressing an opinion
about USCF politics. Yasser had nothing to do with the decision either
to hire or to fire Jim Eade.

OK Sam. Suppose you were on the Board, and Mr. Heavy Hitter posted an
unambiguous, scathing denunciation of one of the representatives to
FIDE, and then you had a chance to accept or reject the guy's
resignation. Which way would you go? I may as well ask you this,
because you have been known to run for the Board from time to time.

Bruce