I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I don't think that
anyone demonstrates more class in their posts to this forum than John
Fernandez. On the other hand, Larry Parr has much to learn about
civility. Nevertheless, I find many of John's arguments on the drug
testing issue to be quite naïve. In particular, I am unable to draw
any comfort from the fact that countries that are already practicing
drug testing apparently do so in a comparatively benign manor.

The history of drug testing is one of expansion. Fifteen years ago,
testing an employee who was showing signs of drug use on the job was
considered a pretty big deal and the idea of testing without cause was
extremely controversial. Today, some high school students must submit
to random drug testing just to participate in extracurricular
activities whether it is football or debate. One indication of how
prevalent it has become is that supporters of drug testing in chess
frequently argue that it simply a routine part of competitive
activities that chess players must accept.

I am not sure how much "Chicken Little" there is in Larry Parr's
warnings about universal testing. On the other hand, I am sure that
the fact that drug testing has not been too bad so far provides no
assurance that it will not be extremely bad in the future. The nature
of drug testing is to expand and the FIDE rules certainly seem
designed to facilitate that expansion. It is foolishly naïve to
believe that this genie is going to be controlled once it gets out of
the bottle.

Vince Hart

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
om...
I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I don't think that
anyone demonstrates more class in their posts to this forum than John
Fernandez. On the other hand, Larry Parr has much to learn about
civility. Nevertheless, I find many of John's arguments on the drug
testing issue to be quite naïve. In particular, I am unable to draw
any comfort from the fact that countries that are already practicing
drug testing apparently do so in a comparatively benign manor.

The history of drug testing is one of expansion. Fifteen years ago,
testing an employee who was showing signs of drug use on the job was
considered a pretty big deal and the idea of testing without cause was
extremely controversial. Today, some high school students must submit
to random drug testing just to participate in extracurricular
activities whether it is football or debate. One indication of how
prevalent it has become is that supporters of drug testing in chess
frequently argue that it simply a routine part of competitive
activities that chess players must accept.

I am not sure how much "Chicken Little" there is in Larry Parr's
warnings about universal testing. On the other hand, I am sure that
the fact that drug testing has not been too bad so far provides no
assurance that it will not be extremely bad in the future. The nature
of drug testing is to expand and the FIDE rules certainly seem
designed to facilitate that expansion. It is foolishly naïve to
believe that this genie is going to be controlled once it gets out of
the bottle.

Vince Hart

This does indeed seem to be a naive argument, just as those who favor
testing seem to be naive in believing how much revenue it may mean for
chess. Their statement has not been verified, and neither has yours. The
direct revenue to chess has been small, the harm from drug testing has been
small.

In other words, neither side seems to be dealing with reality.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results, but in the end, we
don't have much more to rely on than that, irrespective of the topic.

-- Der Wiesel

Altes Wiesel wrote:

This does indeed seem to be a naive argument, just as those who favor
testing seem to be naive in believing how much revenue it may mean for
chess. Their statement has not been verified, and neither has yours.

Of course it's been verified. I've got e-mails or .html files verifying each
piece of data on my chart, and I ask every FIDE Federation to check and update
the number annually. The data is incomplete, but what data is in there is
absolutely solid. Parr's been going nutso over the one case where one number
was publicly corrected, as part of my continual researching process. He uses it
to discredit the research, while in fact, it strengthens it.

John Fernandez

"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...
Altes Wiesel wrote:

This does indeed seem to be a naive argument, just as those who favor
testing seem to be naive in believing how much revenue it may mean for
chess. Their statement has not been verified, and neither has yours.

Of course it's been verified. I've got e-mails or .html files verifying
each
piece of data on my chart, and I ask every FIDE Federation to check and
update
the number annually. The data is incomplete, but what data is in there is
absolutely solid. Parr's been going nutso over the one case where one
number
was publicly corrected, as part of my continual researching process. He
uses it
to discredit the research, while in fact, it strengthens it.

Doesn't a real toxicologist report [cit.op. L. Evans] that there is no way
of assessing even caffeine from urine? An assessment would depend on how
much liquid the subject had recently taken, relative to his metabolism.

Are we discussing here how much testing has taken place, or if any of it is
of use proving an advantage, one player over another?

Phil Innes



John Fernandez

Doesn't a real toxicologist report [cit.op. L. Evans] that there is no way
of assessing even caffeine from urine? An assessment would depend on how
much liquid the subject had recently taken, relative to his metabolism.

My understanding is that this is completely off base. I suspect WADA wouldn't
have a test for something they couldn't test for.

Are we discussing here how much testing has taken place, or if any of it is
of use proving an advantage, one player over another?

Phil Innes

No, Parr's once again attempting to convince people that my research with
regards to NOC support of chess is full of lies and incorrect facts, when it
clearly isn't, and has been verified by quite a few people.

John Fernandez