EADE'S LIBEL CHARGE: GOSPEL TRUTH OR BIG LIE?

By Larry Parr

Some readers have been following the Eade-Sloan libel brouhaha.

Jim Eade claims that Sam Sloan libelled him in Chess Life in a
candidate's statement. Moreover, Mr. Eade has often repeated this charge,
referring to Mr. Sloan as "Scammie" and using other language that is either
nasty hyperbole or accurate description.

If Mr. Eade is telling the truth, then it is the gospel truth that Mr.
Sloan has wronged him. If Mr. Eade is lying, then he is telling the big lie --
an untruth repeated as a mantra.

If Mr. Eade is calling Mr. Sloan names and using the harsh language that
he does in pursuit of a liar, then he is a righteous man attempting to retrieve
damage to his reputation. If Mr. Eade is attacking Mr. Sloan out of personal
pique and no libel occurred, then he is a self-righteous man attempting to
discredit an opponent by retailing a big lie. In the first instance, he is a
good man forced to get tough with a loathsome blackguard; in the second
instance, he is a louse working out an emotional affliction on the e-pages of
rgcp.

Which is it? Righteous good man or self-righteous louse?

In what follows, I do nothing more than review Mr. Sloan's two campaign
contributions to Chess Life, paragraph by paragraph, providing commentary
following each paragraph in multiple brackets. Readers may resolve the posited
dichotomies for themselves.

For Mr. Sloan's candidate's statements, I rely on a text posted here by
Louis Blair, who is to be praised for hunting them down. I assume the
paragraphing is as it was in the original statements in Chess Life.


[[[[[First Sloan statement]]]]]

If you saw the article in the December issue of Altantic Monthly, you
will have read that I am a chess writer and longtime friend of Bobby
Fischer. In a political maneuver, Fischer was expelled from the United States
Chess Federation last year. I plan to have Fischer reinstated and brought back
into chess.

[[[[[So far, Mr. Sloan's statement appears accurate. I see no libel
here. Nor do I see any statement that may reasonably be taken to refer to Mr.
Eade.]]]]]

I want to build up, expand and improve the USCF. I do not want to
break up the USCF into pieces, as another candidate wants to do.

[[[[[To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Eade was not a candidate in the most
recent Executive Board election. The reference to "another candidate" is
clearly not a reference to him. Once again, no libel against Mr. Eade.]]]]]

We need to drop Internet chess, where the field is crowded, and expand
scholastic chess. Every school in the country seems to want us now. We need to
develop teaching materials and course programs for the kids in the schools. If
we do not act now, we will be left in the dust, as we were in Internet chess. I
also want to bring back School Mates magazine.

(149 words)

[[[[[One may dispute Mr. Sloan's call "to drop Internet chess," and one
may wonder whether getting deeply involved in scholastic chess without a
strategy for a pay-line would not toll taps for the USCF. Still, one looks in
vain for any reference to Mr. Eade. I see no libel of Mr. Eade in this
paragraph.]]]]]

[[[[[There now follows Mr. Sloan's second, longer candidate's
statement in Chess Life. Once again, I go through the statement, paragraph by
paragraph, in search of Mr. Eade's repeated claim that he was foully libelled
in the pages of our national chess magazine.]]]]]

Sam Sloan's Second Statement in Chess Life

I first joined the United States Chess Federation in 1956 when I was
11 years old. I have been a tournament chess player for 47 years. I am best
known as a journalist who writes articles about chess. Just about every strong
chess player in the world knows me or has at least heard of me.

[[[[[The first two sentences of the above paragraph deal with Mr. Sloan's
personal particulars. In the third sentence he tells us how people know of
him. In the fourth sentence he claims "just about every strong chess player in
the world knows me." Since Mr. Eade certainly knows Mr. Sloan and since Mr.
Eade has earlier written that he earned a master's rating in the days when
2200-plus meant something, I don't think we can read Mr. Sloan's sentence as a
subtle suggestion that Mr. Eade is a fish. Indeed, if one were to follow this
line of logic, one might see implied praise of Mr. Eade and others like him,
who are "strong" players.Once again, no libel.]]]]]

I have a legal and financial background. I have been the registered
principal of a Wall Street securities firm. I argued orally a case
before the United States Supreme Court, the last non-lawyer ever to do so, and
I won the case 9-0. SEC vs. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978).

[[[[[The above paragraph appears to deal with a securities case in which
Mr. Sloan was involved. Unless Mr. Eade were one of the principals of the
case, I cannot see how this paragraph deals at all with him. Once again, no
libel.]]]]]

I favor re-organization and financial reform in the USCF. Fortunately,
we have the right man to do this in Frank Niro. For at least the last
seven years I have been nagging the USCF office about its persistent failure to
adopt Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Finally, the USCF has agreed to
do what I have been demanding ought to be done.

[[[[[One may argue whether Mr. Sloan hit the nail on the head when
claiming Frank Niro was "the right man" to re-organize and reform the
Federation financially. Yet Mr. Eade and Mr. Niro appeared on good terms then,
and I cannot see that praise of Mr. Niro constitutes a hidden attack on Mr.
Eade. Mr. Sloan's advocacy of GAAP financial reporting is talking about an
idea rather than about a person. Once again, I see no libel.]]]]]

The new financial reports, when and if they ever come out (they are
now eight months late) will for the first time adhere to GAAP.

[[[[[Mr. Sloan's subject here is financial reports and a claim that they
will "adhere to GAAP." He does not appear to be addressing Mr. Eade. Once
again, no libel.]]]]]

The USCF has lost money six years in a row. I believe that I can help
turn this around. The situation is getting better, much better than
before. Nevertheless, we must be vigilant. I have just received a
confidential report that $200,000 in USCF funds have gone missing. If I am
elected, I will not cover this up. I will be fully in favor of
criminal prosecutions, if this report proves to be true. I intend to
demand an investigation of what appears to be wrong-doing and
malfeasance by prior administrations.

[[[[[One may wonder whether Mr. Sloan hit the nail on the head when
claiming the financial condition of the Federation was "getting better, much
better than before." One may question the balance of malfeasance between the
McCrary-Niro administration and that of "prior administrations." One may argue
Mr. Sloan should not have made his claim about a missing $200,000, even though
he couched it carefully, noting it was unproven at the time. One may even
argue Mr. Sloan was right about a missing $200,000, except that it was not the
same money that he imagined in his candidate's statement.

But one cannot argue that Mr. Sloan libelled Mr. Eade in the above
because his topic was not Mr. Eade.]]]]]

On a more positive note, there has been a great expansion in the
popularity of scholastic chess. It seems like every school and every
library wants a chess teacher now. We are in demand and we must
exploit these opportunities. I want to bring back School Mates
magazine, which was abolished as a cost-saving measure.

[[[[[In the above we see only one possible allusion to Mr. Eade: "It
seems like every school and every library wants a chess teacher now." Mr.
Eade, the author of a widely known chess textbook and bestseller, may be
regarded as a teacher, at least by the printed word. If so, Mr. Sloan's
reference would be positive. Once again, I see no libel.]]]]]

I also want to abolish the no-magazine option of USCF membership.
Every member must receive a magazine. I favor a uniform scholastic
dues of $19 and a reduction of regular dues to $39.

[[[[[Mr. Sloan writes herein about abolishing a no-magazine option
rather than abolishing Mr. Eade. Mr. Sloan argues that every member must
receive a magazine; he does not argue that every member must receive Mr. Eade.
Finally, he favors "a uniform scholastic dues" (he makes no mention of putting
Mr. Eade into a uniform) and "a reduction of regular dues" (he does not argue
for reducing Mr. Eade.)

My conclusion: Mr. Eade is in no way addressed in the above. Once
again, no libel.]]]]]

We cannot continue to view scholastic chess as a loss leader. One of the main
reasons the USCF lost money six years in a row was that we were servicing
scholastic members at below cost.

[[[[[Mr. Sloan refers to scholastic chess rather than to Mr. Eade "as a
loss leader." Mr. Sloan speaks of "servicing scholastic members at below
cost." He makes no reference to Mr. Eade being serviced at below cost. Once
again, no libel.]]]]]

We must end special deals for political insiders. For example, a
recent scandal has arisen because the FIDE Zone President for the USA demanded
and received a special deal under which his scholastic players got to join the
USCF for only one dollar. This was illegal and wrong. If I am elected I am
going to demand that he pay back the money. You can be sure that such a thing
will never happen again as long as I am on the board.

[[[[[In the above paragraph Mr. Sloan clearly refers to Mr. Eade, by my
reckoning. When he speaks of "political insiders," a political value judgment,
he obviously includes Mr. Eade because he speaks of such insiders getting
"special deals" and then refers to a special deal that the FIDE Zone President
allegedly received without mentioning Mr. Eade by name.

Let us take each claim by Mr. Sloan to discover whether any may be
considered libellous: 1. Mr. Sloan refers to Mr. Eade as being zone
president. Whether this claim is true or untrue is unimportant unless the fact
of its being such or not such at a given moment is damaging to Mr. Eade's
reputation; 2. He claims that the Zone President "demanded and received a
special deal" -- a demand being met is not a libellous allegation. The issue
becomes whether there was a "special deal" that Mr. Eade did not, in truth,
receive; 3. He claims that Mr. Eade's scholastic players ("his players") got
a deal, which is an untruth in a literal sense and arguably untrue in a
metaphorical sense. Is it a libel?; 4. He states that these players received
a membership for only one dollar (if true in a literal sense, can it be a
libel?); 5. He says such a deal was "illegal and wrong" ("illegal" in the
sense of violating the Federation's bylaws and "wrong" in a moral sense -- are
the two claims, which many have argued on either side, a libel or two
expressions of implied opinion?); 6. Mr. Sloan states he will demand that the
Zone President pay back money that he claims is owed to the USCF (is Mr.
Sloan's statement of what he intends to do a libel against Mr. Eade or an
expression of what he, Mr. Sloan, will do if elected?); 7. Mr. Sloan
concludes by assuring readers that the incident he describes will never happen
again if he is elected to the Board (is Mr. Sloan's statement of what he
intends to do a libel against Mr. Eade or an expression of personal intent on
his part?).

I take no position on the issues here. Readers are free to judge for
themselves whether Mr. Eade is a deeply wronged man seeking redress both from
the Ethics Committee and in the court of chess public opinion, such as it
exists on rgcp and, perhaps, on other chess forums. Or: readers may conclude
that Mr. Eade has been spatting emotive abuse at Mr. Sloan for reasons that my
have nothing to do with what Mr. Sloan wrote in Chess Life.]]]]]