WHAT'S NEXT? OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING?

Decision of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel

The procedure

A written statement by doctor Eduardo Ribot came in that the player Shaun Press
from Papua New Guinea on october 28th 2004 during the Chess Olympiad in Calvia,
Mallorca had refused to submit to the doping control.

On october 30th 2004 there was a hearing of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel. At
the hearing were present the five members of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel
Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus Deventer, Jonathan Speelman and
Sergey Dolmatov, and the player Shaun Press, accompanied by his counsel Cathy
Rogers and by his lawyer Roberto Ferrer.

The competence of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel

The player Shaun Press has been notified that according to article 5 of the
FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations the members of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel
should be appointed by the FIDE Executive Board. The player Shaun Press has
been given the opportunity to discuss privately the composition of the Panel
with his counsel and his lawyer. The player Shaun Press accepted the
composition of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel. So the Panel is competent.

The statement of the player Shaun Press

The statement of the player Shaun Press was the following. He confessed that he
refused to submit to the doping control. The written statement of doctor
Eduardo Ribot is not correct. When the doctor asked him to submit to the doping
control, he asked to the doctor if there was any evidence that he had used
forbidden substances. When the doctor said no, he refused because he can not be
obliged to produce evidence against himself. He did not know the possible
sanctions at that moment. If he would have known the regulations, he first
would have discussed the regulations with his teammates. In the meeting of team
captains on october 15th before the first round the chief arbiter told that
there would be doping controls in the last week of the tournament, but he did
not say anything about the possible sanctions and he did not say that there
were new anti-doping regulations that were different from the regulations that
were accepted in Bled in 2002. When a team captain asked a question to the
Chief Arbiter about the anti-doping regulations, the Chief Arbiter did not
answer the question. Neither at any other moment had been told to the team
captains or the players that there were new anti-doping regulations. FIDE did
not inform the federations that there were new anti-doping regulations. During
the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 there were refusals and nobody had been
sanctioned. He presented a written statement by Stuart Fancy, in the last 15
month president of the Papua New Guinea Chess Federation, that he is not
informed during that time by FIDE of any anti-doping regulations and that he
has not been asked to check on any website of such regulations. He also
presented a written statement of zone president Gary Bekker that he was not be
made aware of the new anti-doping regulations prior to the 36th Olympiad.
Further he was not all the time accompanied by a doping official in the hour
between the refusal of the original test and the second visit to the doping
room; so if he would have wished to take the test, then it would have been
void. That is contrary to the anti-doping regulations. From the doping control
form it is not clear which authorities are responsible for the doping controls.
It was not known what would happen with the samples after the control. In the
forms there was no information about the regulations of procedure. In Australia
chess is not a sport. He has a FIDE-rating. He did not play any FIDE rated
event between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the Olympiad in Mallorca in
2004. He is an amateur player.

The judgment

The refusal to submit to the doping control is a violation of article 2.2.3 of
the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations. The fact that the player was not accompanied
by a doping official in the hour between his first visit and the second visit
to the doping control and a test might be void, is not a good reason for a
refusal. So this fact does not prevent a sanction. It is not assumable that the
player refused because the form was deficient or not clear. In the meeting of
the teamcaptains on october 15th the Chief Arbiter has announced that there
will be doping controls during the last week of the Olympiad. He repeated this
information at the beginning of the first round. The new anti-dopingregulations
are since a long time published on the website www.fide.com. Although it is the
reponsibility of FIDE to inform the federations and the players about the FIDE
Anti-Doping Regulations, it is also a responsibility of the player to be
informed about the applicable anti-dopingregulations when he is informed that
doping controls will be held. Especially when he intends to refuse to submit to
doping controls, he should try to get information about the possible sanctions.
It is not assumable that the player was not able to get information. The fact
that players who refused in Bled in 2002, where the first doping controls of
FIDE were held, have not been sanctioned, was due to the fact that the
anti-doping regulations of FIDE were changed during the event. This fact does
not form a good reason to trust that there will be no sanctioning in case of
refusals in future events. There is no violation of procedure regulations and
there is no circumstance that prevent sanctioning Shaun Press.

The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to be
positive tested. According to article 6.1 of the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations
the disqualification of individual results is the automatic consequence in each
doping case. According to article 6.4.a juncto 6.2 of the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations exclusion from participating in events organised by FIDE or
national chess federations is further the normal sanction after a refusal.
However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are not
well known in a part of the federations in FIDE. Further, Shaun Press is an
amateur player who came on his own cost to the Olympiad. The FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations are in the first place meant for the professional players of whom
there are many in chess. For these reasons a majority of three members of the
Panel judges that next to the cancelling of the points gathered during the
Olympiad, there is no place for an exclusion, but only a warning should be
given. A minority of two members of the Panel judges that also this sanctioning
is to severe and there should be no cancelling of points, but just a warning.
The FIDE Doping Hearing Panel judges unanimously that in future cases the Panel
will in all probability be forced to impose two years of ineligibility, even if
an amateur is concerned. The decision will be given according to the judgment
of the majority of the Panel.

At the moment that the decision was given orally, the player was informed that
he had the possibility to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport within
21 days.

The decision

The FIDE Doping Hearing Panel decides:

That the points gathered by Shaun Press from Papua New Guinea during the
Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca will be cancelled;

That Shaun Press will get a warning for violating the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations.

This decision is given by Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus
Deventer, Jonathan Speelman and Sergey Dolmatov, and is orally communicated to
Shaun Press on october 30th 2004 and is sent to him in written form on november
4th 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------

Decision of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel

The procedure

A written statement by doctor Jana Bellin came in that the player Bobby Miller
from Bermuda on oktober 27th 2004 during the Chess Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca
had refused to submit to the doping control.

On October 30th 2004 there was a hearing of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel. At
the hearing were present the five members of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel
Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus Deventer, Jonathan Speelman and
Sergey Dolmatov, and the player Bobby Miller, accompanied by his counsel Nigel
Freeman.

The competence of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel

The player Bobby Miller has been notified that according to article 5 of the
FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations the members of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel
should be appointed by the FIDE Executive Board. The player Bobby Miller has
been given the opportunity to discuss privately the composition of the Panel
with his counsel. The player Bobby Miller accepted the composition of the FIDE
Doping Hearing Panel. So the Panel is competent.

The statement of the player Bobby Miller

The statement of the player Bobby Miller was the following. He confessed that
he refused to submit to the doping control. His team captain Nick de Firmian
has advised him to refuse. He did not know about the possible sanctions.
Bermuda is a low team in the ranking. Bobby Miller is an amateur. He has no
FIDE-rating . He played between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the Olympiad
in 2004 only one FIDE rated event, the Bermuda Open 2003. In that event he
played only one game against a FIDE-rated player.

The judgment

The refusal to submit to the doping control is a violation of article 2.2.3 of
the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations. In the meeting of the teamcaptains on october
15th the Chief Arbiter has announced that there will be doping controls during
the last week of the Olympiad. He repeated this information at the beginning of
the first round. The new anti-dopingregulations are since a long time published
on the website www.fide.com. Although it is the responsibility of FIDE to
inform the federations and the players about the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations,
it is also a responsibility of the player to be informed about the applicable
anti-dopingregulations when he is informed that doping controls will be held.
Especially when he intends to refuse to submit to doping controls, he should
try to get information about the possible sanctions. Also when the teamcaptain
advises to refuse, the player keeps his own responsibility to decide if he
submits to the doping control or refuses. The advise of the teamcaptain does
not deprive the player from his own responsibility. There is no violation of
procedure regulations and there is no circumstance that prevent sanctioning
Bobby Miller.


The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to be
positive tested. According to article 6.1 of the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations
the disqualification of individual results is the automatic consequence in each
doping case. According to article 6.4.a juncto article 6.2 of the FIDE
Anti-Doping Regulations exclusion from participating in events organised by
FIDE or national chess federations is further the normal sanction after a
refusal.. However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations are not well known in a part of the federations in FIDE. Further,
Bobby Miller is an amateur player who came on his own cost to the Olympiad. The
FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are in the first place meant for the professional
players of whom there are many in chess. For these reasons a majority of three
members of the Panel judges that next to the cancelling of the points gathered
during the Olympiad, there is no place for an exclusion, but only a warning
should be given. A minority of two members of the Panel judges that also this
sanctioning is to severe and there should be no cancelling of points, but just
a warning. The FIDE Doping Hearing Panel judges unanimously that in future
cases the Panel will in all probability be forced to impose two years of
ineligibility, even if an amateur is concerned. The decision will be given
according to the judgment of the majority of the Panel.

At the moment that the decision was given orally, the player was informed that
he had the possibility to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport within
21 days.

The decision


The FIDE Doping Hearing Panel decides:

That the points gathered by Bobby Miller from Bermuda during the Olympiad in
Calvia, Mallorca will be cancelled;

That Bobby Miller will get a warning for violating the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations.

This decision is given by Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus Deventer,
Jonathan Speelman and Sergey Dolmatov, and is orally communicated to Bobby
Miller on october 30th 2004 and is sent to him in written form on november 4th
2004.

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

An awful day. The sad thing is not that some FIDE crapsters signed such a
decision but that GM Jonathan Speelman participated in the process at all. Eric
"FIDE all the way" Johnson will be celebrating a triumph of the meat grinder
over the individual; the rest of us will be wondering what we will have to do
to get the USCF to disavow drug testing completely.

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

Unfortunately there are certain crimes for which standard civilized practice
of evidence, culpability, self-incrimination, etc. do not apply. I won't go
into all of them but drug- (including alcohol) taking is one of those
offenses. Thus, you can kill two people on a California street but be
acquitted through a combination of botched police procedure, skillful
representation, and a gullible jury. And that's as it should be. How
convenient that, for those who wish to prosecute and persecute alleged
takers of illegal or banned drugs, procedure is thrown out the window for
the sake of safety, political correctness, public opinion, or legal
convenience.

FIDE's drug policy is nothing more than civil/private authorities adopting
barbaric, anachronistic, semi/quasi-legal practices that have been taking
place in courts for 20 years or more.

As long as the state of California can sentence a guy who carries a gun into
a small-time pot bust to 55 years in jail FIDE, employers, and other
official governing bodies will feel comfortable behaving like savages.

adp

"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...
WHAT'S NEXT? OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING?

Decision of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel

The procedure

A written statement by doctor Eduardo Ribot came in that the player Shaun
Press
from Papua New Guinea on october 28th 2004 during the Chess Olympiad in
Calvia,
Mallorca had refused to submit to the doping control.

On october 30th 2004 there was a hearing of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel.
At
the hearing were present the five members of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel
Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus Deventer, Jonathan Speelman
and
Sergey Dolmatov, and the player Shaun Press, accompanied by his counsel
Cathy
Rogers and by his lawyer Roberto Ferrer.

The competence of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel

The player Shaun Press has been notified that according to article 5 of
the
FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations the members of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel
should be appointed by the FIDE Executive Board. The player Shaun Press
has
been given the opportunity to discuss privately the composition of the
Panel
with his counsel and his lawyer. The player Shaun Press accepted the
composition of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel. So the Panel is competent.

The statement of the player Shaun Press

The statement of the player Shaun Press was the following. He confessed
that he
refused to submit to the doping control. The written statement of doctor
Eduardo Ribot is not correct. When the doctor asked him to submit to the
doping
control, he asked to the doctor if there was any evidence that he had used
forbidden substances. When the doctor said no, he refused because he can
not be
obliged to produce evidence against himself. He did not know the possible
sanctions at that moment. If he would have known the regulations, he first
would have discussed the regulations with his teammates. In the meeting of
team
captains on october 15th before the first round the chief arbiter told
that
there would be doping controls in the last week of the tournament, but he
did
not say anything about the possible sanctions and he did not say that
there
were new anti-doping regulations that were different from the regulations
that
were accepted in Bled in 2002. When a team captain asked a question to the
Chief Arbiter about the anti-doping regulations, the Chief Arbiter did not
answer the question. Neither at any other moment had been told to the team
captains or the players that there were new anti-doping regulations. FIDE
did
not inform the federations that there were new anti-doping regulations.
During
the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 there were refusals and nobody had been
sanctioned. He presented a written statement by Stuart Fancy, in the last
15
month president of the Papua New Guinea Chess Federation, that he is not
informed during that time by FIDE of any anti-doping regulations and that
he
has not been asked to check on any website of such regulations. He also
presented a written statement of zone president Gary Bekker that he was
not be
made aware of the new anti-doping regulations prior to the 36th Olympiad.
Further he was not all the time accompanied by a doping official in the
hour
between the refusal of the original test and the second visit to the
doping
room; so if he would have wished to take the test, then it would have been
void. That is contrary to the anti-doping regulations. From the doping
control
form it is not clear which authorities are responsible for the doping
controls.
It was not known what would happen with the samples after the control. In
the
forms there was no information about the regulations of procedure. In
Australia
chess is not a sport. He has a FIDE-rating. He did not play any FIDE rated
event between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the Olympiad in Mallorca in
2004. He is an amateur player.

The judgment

The refusal to submit to the doping control is a violation of article
2.2.3 of
the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations. The fact that the player was not
accompanied
by a doping official in the hour between his first visit and the second
visit
to the doping control and a test might be void, is not a good reason for a
refusal. So this fact does not prevent a sanction. It is not assumable
that the
player refused because the form was deficient or not clear. In the meeting
of
the teamcaptains on october 15th the Chief Arbiter has announced that
there
will be doping controls during the last week of the Olympiad. He repeated
this
information at the beginning of the first round. The new
anti-dopingregulations
are since a long time published on the website www.fide.com. Although it
is the
reponsibility of FIDE to inform the federations and the players about the
FIDE
Anti-Doping Regulations, it is also a responsibility of the player to be
informed about the applicable anti-dopingregulations when he is informed
that
doping controls will be held. Especially when he intends to refuse to
submit to
doping controls, he should try to get information about the possible
sanctions.
It is not assumable that the player was not able to get information. The
fact
that players who refused in Bled in 2002, where the first doping controls
of
FIDE were held, have not been sanctioned, was due to the fact that the
anti-doping regulations of FIDE were changed during the event. This fact
does
not form a good reason to trust that there will be no sanctioning in case
of
refusals in future events. There is no violation of procedure regulations
and
there is no circumstance that prevent sanctioning Shaun Press.

The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to
be
positive tested. According to article 6.1 of the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations
the disqualification of individual results is the automatic consequence in
each
doping case. According to article 6.4.a juncto 6.2 of the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations exclusion from participating in events organised by FIDE or
national chess federations is further the normal sanction after a refusal.
However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations
are not
well known in a part of the federations in FIDE. Further, Shaun Press is
an
amateur player who came on his own cost to the Olympiad. The FIDE
Anti-Doping
Regulations are in the first place meant for the professional players of
whom
there are many in chess. For these reasons a majority of three members of
the
Panel judges that next to the cancelling of the points gathered during the
Olympiad, there is no place for an exclusion, but only a warning should be
given. A minority of two members of the Panel judges that also this
sanctioning
is to severe and there should be no cancelling of points, but just a
warning.
The FIDE Doping Hearing Panel judges unanimously that in future cases the
Panel
will in all probability be forced to impose two years of ineligibility,
even if
an amateur is concerned. The decision will be given according to the
judgment
of the majority of the Panel.

At the moment that the decision was given orally, the player was informed
that
he had the possibility to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport
within
21 days.

The decision

The FIDE Doping Hearing Panel decides:

That the points gathered by Shaun Press from Papua New Guinea during the
Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca will be cancelled;

That Shaun Press will get a warning for violating the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations.

This decision is given by Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus
Deventer, Jonathan Speelman and Sergey Dolmatov, and is orally
communicated to
Shaun Press on october 30th 2004 and is sent to him in written form on
november
4th 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------

Decision of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel

The procedure

A written statement by doctor Jana Bellin came in that the player Bobby
Miller
from Bermuda on oktober 27th 2004 during the Chess Olympiad in Calvia,
Mallorca
had refused to submit to the doping control.

On October 30th 2004 there was a hearing of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel.
At
the hearing were present the five members of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel
Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus Deventer, Jonathan Speelman
and
Sergey Dolmatov, and the player Bobby Miller, accompanied by his counsel
Nigel
Freeman.

The competence of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel

The player Bobby Miller has been notified that according to article 5 of
the
FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations the members of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel
should be appointed by the FIDE Executive Board. The player Bobby Miller
has
been given the opportunity to discuss privately the composition of the
Panel
with his counsel. The player Bobby Miller accepted the composition of the
FIDE
Doping Hearing Panel. So the Panel is competent.

The statement of the player Bobby Miller

The statement of the player Bobby Miller was the following. He confessed
that
he refused to submit to the doping control. His team captain Nick de
Firmian
has advised him to refuse. He did not know about the possible sanctions.
Bermuda is a low team in the ranking. Bobby Miller is an amateur. He has
no
FIDE-rating . He played between the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 and the
Olympiad
in 2004 only one FIDE rated event, the Bermuda Open 2003. In that event he
played only one game against a FIDE-rated player.

The judgment

The refusal to submit to the doping control is a violation of article
2.2.3 of
the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations. In the meeting of the teamcaptains on
october
15th the Chief Arbiter has announced that there will be doping controls
during
the last week of the Olympiad. He repeated this information at the
beginning of
the first round. The new anti-dopingregulations are since a long time
published
on the website www.fide.com. Although it is the responsibility of FIDE to
inform the federations and the players about the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations,
it is also a responsibility of the player to be informed about the
applicable
anti-dopingregulations when he is informed that doping controls will be
held.
Especially when he intends to refuse to submit to doping controls, he
should
try to get information about the possible sanctions. Also when the
teamcaptain
advises to refuse, the player keeps his own responsibility to decide if he
submits to the doping control or refuses. The advise of the teamcaptain
does
not deprive the player from his own responsibility. There is no violation
of
procedure regulations and there is no circumstance that prevent
sanctioning
Bobby Miller.


The refusal of submitting a sample means that the player is considered to
be
positive tested. According to article 6.1 of the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations
the disqualification of individual results is the automatic consequence in
each
doping case. According to article 6.4.a juncto article 6.2 of the FIDE
Anti-Doping Regulations exclusion from participating in events organised
by
FIDE or national chess federations is further the normal sanction after a
refusal.. However, the Panel has discovered that the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations are not well known in a part of the federations in FIDE.
Further,
Bobby Miller is an amateur player who came on his own cost to the
Olympiad. The
FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations are in the first place meant for the
professional
players of whom there are many in chess. For these reasons a majority of
three
members of the Panel judges that next to the cancelling of the points
gathered
during the Olympiad, there is no place for an exclusion, but only a
warning
should be given. A minority of two members of the Panel judges that also
this
sanctioning is to severe and there should be no cancelling of points, but
just
a warning. The FIDE Doping Hearing Panel judges unanimously that in future
cases the Panel will in all probability be forced to impose two years of
ineligibility, even if an amateur is concerned. The decision will be given
according to the judgment of the majority of the Panel.

At the moment that the decision was given orally, the player was informed
that
he had the possibility to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport
within
21 days.

The decision


The FIDE Doping Hearing Panel decides:

That the points gathered by Bobby Miller from Bermuda during the Olympiad
in
Calvia, Mallorca will be cancelled;

That Bobby Miller will get a warning for violating the FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations.

This decision is given by Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus
Deventer,
Jonathan Speelman and Sergey Dolmatov, and is orally communicated to Bobby
Miller on october 30th 2004 and is sent to him in written form on november
4th
2004.

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not
be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical
Commission.

(Parrthenon) wrote in message ...
An awful day. The sad thing is not that some FIDE crapsters signed such a
decision but that GM Jonathan Speelman participated in the process at all. Eric
"FIDE all the way" Johnson will be celebrating a triumph of the meat grinder
over the individual; the rest of us will be wondering what we will have to do
to get the USCF to disavow drug testing completely.

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

The Olympics is an embarrassment to clean culture. Drugs, money,
corruption. It's sinking ship of criminal madness. I have no idea what
the big deal is for FIDE to suck up to this gang and submit thousands
of players to drug testing so that a handful can go home with the
dubious distinction of winning a gold medal. You tell me, what's the
big attraction for FIDE to become involved in the Olympics?