(Parrthenon) wrote in message ...
13 QUESTIONS

By Larry Parr

"I can't think of a better way than drug tests to kill chess promotion in
America. The overwhelming feeling of USCF members is to oppose testing -- not
that anyone on the current board except Tim Hanke seems to care." -- GM Larry
Evans

In response to anti-testing advocates, USCF president Beatriz Marinello ordered
former Chess Life editor Glenn Petersen to poll American grandmasters and our
100 top players about mandatory random drug testing in all FIDE competitions.
These 13 suggestions were submitted by GM Evans and this writer.

1. Do you favor or oppose FIDE having the power to ban players for life
from international chess because they refuse to take drug tests (Article 6 of
“FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations�)?

I'm certainly not a Top player, but I'll give my opinions
nevertheless

I'm opposed to FIDE having the power to ban players because of
refusal to take drug tests.

2. Do you favor or oppose the USCF supporting FIDE in carrying out
punishments directed against American players?

I oppose any USCF of FIDE in enforcing the FIDE drug policy.

3. Do you favor or oppose the USCF supporting FIDE in carrying out
punishments directed against players from other countries?

I oppose USCF support of any player, for violation of a drug
policy, irrespective of whether they are American.

4. Do you favor or oppose the existence of a planned FIDE “tribunal�
to decide whether players should receive a lifetime ban from international
chess or other lesser punishments?

I'm against the idea of a FIDE drug violation tribunal.

5. Do you favor or oppose FIDE conducting out-of-competition drug testing
any time, any place, for any reason, stated or unstated?

Absolutely opposed to FIDE conducting any drug testing, even
DURING competitions.

6. Do you favor or oppose the USCF helping to enforce out-of-competition
drug testing by providing FIDE with the “whereabouts information� of
American players (Article 3.2 of “FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations�)?

This seems simply bizarre. I'm opposed to giving FIDE any
information about American players' "whereabouts".

7. Do you favor or oppose drug testing of children (Article 3.1 of “FIDE
Anti-Doping Regulations,� in which it is stated FIDE “is entitled to carry
out doping control on any competitor� in a FIDE-rated event)?

Naturally, given the above, I oppose the drug testing of children.

8. Do you favor or oppose the USCF stating to the international chess
community that it will oppose drug testing and will not enforce FIDE’s drug
testing code?

The USCF should unequivocably state to FIDE and the international
chess community that it is absolutely and unalterably opposed to
FIDE's drug testing scheme.

9. Do you favor or oppose the USCF working with allies to establish a new
world chess organization that would supplant FIDE?

FIDE is corrupt through and through. The USCF ought to immediately
quit FIDE, even if no other world chess organization exists. A new
replacement organization would no doubt be swiftly created.


10. Do you agree or disagree with GM Artur Yusupov and others that given the
rejection of chess by the IOC, FIDE’s evident motive is to establish
political control over players by wielding drug-testing to destroy the careers
of dissenters?

Yes, FIDE's drug testing scheme is about power and money. What
else?

11. Is there a drug problem in chess?

Yes, alcoholism and nicotine addiction are rampant. However,
the use of these drugs in no way enhances one's performance--quite the
opposite. Thus, it is not the business of a chessic "Big Brother"

12. Do you favor or oppose drug testing in chess?

I'm absolutely opposed to drug testing in chess, under any
circumstances.

13. Do you favor or oppose the Executive Board seeking a vote of USCF members
with FIDE playing titles about whether the Federation should repudiate the FIDE
Drug Code?

As I don't have a FIDE Title, I don't feel strongly about the idea
of seeking a vote. It could be counterproductive, as "turnout" would
be liable to be small, and people like Fernandez could spin the
results to try to convince politicos that those players have no
objections to the FIDE drug code.
If it is fairly certain that the vote would strongly repudiate FIDE,
then I would be in favor of it.


Of course, I believe that those who support FIDE, or who are FIDE
bureaucrats, have implicitly agreed to FIDE's drug testing policy.
Therefore, it is OK to administered drug tests to them, since they
have implicitely volunteered to take them (as they are not
objectionable).

It really doesn't matter what GM's think about drug testing. Do you
think that the NFL polls it's players about whether they WANT to take
drug tests? Of course they don't. Yes, the player's unions negotiate
the policy, but that focuses more on fairness of testing, the scale of
consequenses, etc. - not on whether testing should happen at all.

If you take banned substances, you don't want the tests, because
either you'll have to stop, or else risk the consequences of getting
caught. And obvioulsy you are only taking such drugs because you find
them "beneficial".

If you don't take any banned substances, you probably see testing as a
waste of time and resources.

But a sponsoring organization, whether it be the Olympics, or private
corporations, might require drug testing, if they feel there is a risk
to their reputation.

And yes, competitive chess could be ripe for drug abuse. As is any
activity, sport, politics, business or otherwise, where money and
other desirable prizes are at stake. And the argument that there
aren't any drugs that have been proven to enhance chess playing skill
is naieve. Top level chess requires tremendous amounts of emotional
and physical stamina, and there are many drugs that purport to improve
those capabilities. And given enough incentive, why wouldn't an
enterprising pharmacologist attempt to create a sort of mental
concentration viagra .. that could come in handy during those 6 hour
playing sessions against 2700+ GMs.

WHO CARES WHAT GMs WANT?

By Larry Parr

It really doesn't matter what GM's think about drug testing. -- Chess
Hobbyist

Another perfect example of FIDE-think from an anonomouse.

When Florencio Campomanes was asked about what GMs think, he replied, "How
many votes do they have in FIDE?"

ChessHobbyist wrote:
If you take banned substances, you don't want the tests, because
either you'll have to stop, or else risk the consequences of getting
caught. And obvioulsy you are only taking such drugs because you find
them "beneficial".

Part of the objection is that many medicines contain banned substances.
Taking cold remedies, for example, is likely to make you test positive.
Cold remedies aren't performance-enhancing as such -- they just help you
to get your performance a little closer to what it would have been if you
didn't have the damned cold.

To me, drugs testing of chess players seems rather pointess, but I've not
put any thought into the matter.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Frozen Zen Watch (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ precision chronometer that puts you
in touch with the universe but it's
frozen in a block of ice!

David - Yes, drug testing is a complicated issue. Should someone who
suffers from seasonal allergies be disqualified because they took a
Sudafed 24 hours before the competition?

But my point continues to be that the competitors are never the ones
who favor drug testing ... it's always the sponsors.

TOUGH, FAIR QUESTIONS

By Larry Parr

Evans and Parr have certainly focused on the most objectionable
portions of the FIDE drug testing rules, but I do not see them
embracing vague euphemisms like "small number of random drug tests,"
"significant dollars," and "several years of hardship" in order to induce the
answer that they desire. To the extent that the phrasing of their questions
flows directly from the FIDE rules themselves, I do not think they can be
accused of using "fighting words." Maybe their questions just seem biased
because the FIDE rules are really that bad. -- Vince Hart

I favor a hard-hitting questionnaire. Bruce Draney argues that GM Evans and I
asked biased rather than tough questions in which we sum up a case within the
questions in favor of obvious answers. We would argue that we asked tough
questions based on the actual FIDE drug code, which makes for ugly reading.
But should we not use the words in the FIDE code when asking questions about
whether one supports the code or opposes it?

Now, then, you have been told that our "team" worked to soften the
code. Actually, it is more HARSH in certain areas, including testing of
children and in the area of out of competition testing. In the earlier code,
there was a statement that testing of children under 16 would not occur; the
current code in Article 3.1 provides for testing of "any competitor in any FIDE
Competitition."

Let's look at each question to discover whether Evans and I made a
case or asked tough questions that are inconvenient for those who support our
FIDE "team."

1. Do you favor or oppose FIDE having the power to ban players for life from
international chess because they refuse to take drug tests (Article 6 of "FIDE
Anti-Doping Regulations")?
[[[[[No doubt this is a very tough question. We put it first for that
reason. We fail to see how we have gilded any lily in the above. The question
is flat and to the point. We fail to see how we have added emotive words or
have used phrases other than those that express what appears in the FIDE
regulations.]]]]]

2. Do you favor or oppose the USCF supporting FIDE in carrying out
punishments directed against American players?
[[[[[Nasty question, no doubt! But under the regulations, national
federations are expected to enforce FIDE judgments. We did not ask, for
example, whether USCF should help carry out FIDE "purges." Nor did we ask
whether the USCF should help carry out FIDE "consequences." We just used the
plain word "punishments." Is there a nice word? Would it have been more
neutral to have spoken of USCF helping to carry out "bans" against American
players?]]]]]

3. Do you favor or oppose the USCF supporting FIDE in carrying out
punishments directed against players from other countries?
[[[[[This question is identical to No. 2 except that it deals with
players from other countries. We have gilded no lilies, just dealt with the
meat and potatoes of the FIDE regs.]]]]]

4. Do you favor or oppose the existence of a planned FIDE "tribunal"
to decide whether players should receive a lifetime ban from international
chess or other less punishments?
[[[[[The FIDE Congress papers used the word "tribunal" to describe the
body that would make decisions that could end careers. We placed the word in
quotations to indicate that it was not ours. Once again, the question is
certainly striking. We fail to see how we employed emotive language or made a
case presupposing an answer.
What FIDE and our USCF political class want to foist on the chess
world is SHOCKING. It makes for ugly reading even when expressed in the
language of the regulations themselves. There is a different, as Vinny Hart
has noted, between our employing impermissible language and asking questions
based on FIDE's frankly shocking regulations.]]]]]

5. Do you favor or oppose FIDE conducting out-of-competition testing
any time, any place, for any reason, stated or unstated?
[[[[[The regulations provide for out-of-competition testing without
any prohibitions as to time, place, reason. Period. This question could be
legitimately softened by adding the phrase "which could be at" between the
words "testing" and "any." Still, it is more words and, quite frankly, is
really no different than the question we asked.]]]]]

6. Do you favor or oppose the USCF helping to enforce
out-of-competition drug testing by providing FIDE with the "whereabouts
information" of American players (Article 3.2 of "FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations")?
[[[[[The phrase "whereabouts information" is in the FIDE drug code. It
is not our invention. The regulations require national federations to provide
such information. Now, then, we could have asked the question to read about
providing such info to a killer such as Kirsan Ilyumzhinov or we could have
added the perfectly reasonable phrase "and help FIDE to carry out other actions
in enforcing out-of-competition testing," since such actions will undoubtedly
be required. Still, we did not. We asked another BRUISING question based
only on what is in the FIDE regs. We asked it in flat language.]]]]]

7. Do you favor or oppose drug testing of children (Article 3.1 of
"FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations," in which it is stated FIDE "is entitled to
carry out doping control on any competitor" in a FIDE-rated event)?
[[[[[The issue here is whether it is permissible to ask any question
relating to the likely desensitizing of children. If any of you have read the
procedures involved in carrying urine and/or blood samples from one testing
station to another, you will know that such will happen.
Still, we kept our question focussed on what the regulations provide,
which is for testing of "any competitor." One possible issue is our use of the
word "stated" rather than "says." The answer is that the stronger "stated" is
considered perfectly legitimate when quoting a formal code, though it is
frowned upon when quoting spoken words, except when the speaker is reading from
a formal document.]]]]]

8. Do you favor or oppose the USCF stating to the international chess
community that it will oppose drug testing and will not enforce FIDE's drug
testing code?
[[[[[[Straightforward. Some of the pro-drug testers will want to add
qualifying phrases such as "even though careers of American players be
destroyed." Etc. etc. The truth is that those supporting our FIDE "team" are
the ones who want to add extraneous information to questions.]]]]]

9. Do you favor or oppose the USCF working with allies to establish a
new world chess organization that would supplant FIDE?
[[[[[Straightforwards. Perhaps the word "allies" could be replaced by
"other countries." But we don't see a material difference here. The pro-drug
testers would favor a loaded question that would provide the opinion that such
an initiative could not succeed, etc.]]]]]

10. Do you agree or disagree with GM Artur Yusupov and others that
given the rejection of chess by the IOC, FIDE's evident motive is to establish
political control over players by wielding drug-testing to destroy the careers
of dissenters?
[[[[[This question is a frank opinion question. It reads as such.
There is nothing wrong with, say, some other grandmaster or chess official
being quoted disagreeing with Yusupov and asking whether one agrees or
disagrees with that point of view.]]]]]

11. Is there a drug problem in chess?

[[[[[Another hard question because we all know the answer. Yet how
can one leave out this short, flatly expressed question in a questionnaire
about drug testing in chess?]]]]]

12. Do you favor or oppose drug testing in chess?

[[[[[Even to ask the question is to answer it. Both sides understand
this point. Therefore, although the question is short and neutral, the pro
drug testers do not want it asked or, if asked, want to add phrases to qualify
it.]]]]]

13. Do you favor or oppose the Executive Board seeking a vote of USCF
members with FIDE playing titles about whether the Federation should repudiate
the FIDE Drug Code?
[[[[[This question does have a fault, though a small one. The phrase
"support or" should be added before "repudiate."]]]]]